September 2014 A New Rainy Season Approaches

There has been much talk this year with regards to the drought in the Southwest, and especially here in Southern California. The grapevine says that the Pacific is warming up with the possible result that we may have an El Nino year...and yet I have heard contrary info as well. The answer is, I don't know and I wonder if anyone does.

When I teach classes, I often ask whether climate change/global warming is real, just to get a sense of the people. Without fail, I will get one or two class participants declaring that climate change is a grand hoax perpetrated by the left. I then ask where they get their information from...and without hesitation they gleefully admit getting all their information from Mr. Murdoch, and his staff of "Fair and Balanced" reporters.

With all the anomalous weather over the last few years including the warming of the oceans, I honestly don't know the answer, but what I do know is that I prefer clean air and water over the alternative. If there is the possibility that these climate issues are real, I would rather err on the proactive side in favor of clean air and water.

The noise machine has confused the issue to the point where people question whether climate change/global warming is real, which is not the question, the question is whether we (mankind) are directly contributing to it. Mr. Murdoch and his "Fair and Balanced" reporters have been paid to confuse us with the wrong issue. At some point, even in the backward looking States, the people will come to realize, after some significant unnatural-natural disaster, that their politicians have not been entirely honest, and that pandering to bias and ignorance has done more harm than good.

Who is paying for all the misinformation? Who gains by misinforming the public? Remember the misinformation campaigns of the 50's and 60,s which tried to convince us that cigarettes did not cause cancer, and 9 out 10 doctors preferred Camels. Who paid for those campaigns, and funded the politicians that kept us in the dark...follow the money?



 

Storm Water Thoughts...Caltrans changes SWPPP template again, and I like it.

Caltrans has been at it again updating the template, and I think they might have gotten it right this time. Originally the Tahoe SWPPP Template used an Access Data Base for input and that was a little challenging because it felt like a beta version of the template...but ultimately we got through it. Now the non-Tahoe SWPPP and WPCP Template have also been updated with an Access Data Base for filling in the template, and it worked. Well in fact it worked really well, and didn't feel like a temperamental beta version, but a smooth functioning application. The only problem so far, apparently the reviewer on a recent SWPPP project didn't get the memo on the new template and based his evaluation on one of the 2012 template. Now I know that this may sound like a complaint, but it is in fact an ironic moment, in that Caltrans is extremely prescriptive with their templates forbidding all comers from deviating from the boilerplate language in the template. In fact the reviewers are often less than helpful in interpreting the latest nuance and often wonder why anyone outside of Caltrans doesn't find their arcane interpretation of the moment "intuitively obvious". So, I am now waiting to see if this reviewer wishes to have me rewrite the SWPPP using a template from 2012, or do as I have learned to do prior to each new Caltrans project, go to their website.. anyone including Caltrans that needs the the link, here it is: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/

http://www.estormwater.com/inspector-general-0

 

Storm Water Thoughts...Are compromised inspection standards the new norm?

We spend a great deal of our time working with many different owners, general contractors and agencies performing storm water compliance inspections. The surprising thing is that there appears to be at least one organization out there that is promising to pencil whip QSP reports on a monthly basis, after providing the contractor with token training. The CGP clearly states that a QSP can delegate the inspection to a properly trained individual. I don't have a problem with this approach when we control the site, i.e. we are both employees of the general contractor. I don't understand how an outside QSP Inspector can claim to have control over a contractor if the site is not inspected weekly by the contract Inspector. As an organization, our approach is to not delegate to the contractor ensuring that there is a clear line between the Inspector and the contractor, i.e. the inspector inspects and the contractor implements the fixes identified by the inspector. To approach inspections in any other way, is to deviate from the original spirit of the regulation and potentially puts your LRP at risk. One of my inspectors came to me today and told me of a conservation with a contractor who had recently completed a project using one of these fly-by-night QSP services. The contractor stated that this QSP service had told him not to sweat the pencil whipped reports, as the State wasn't paying attention anyway.

Storm Water Thoughts 2014

Another year has passed and storm water compliance has been moving along with a few new things finally getting established or standardized. Truthfully not that much has changed, the prime directive is to keep crap out of the storm drain system...all else is in support of this objective.

As an example of CGP interpretation, any project that has a NOI for 3 consecutive months within the reporting year must submit an Annual Report. Interpretation any project that has been active for 2 months and 1 day will be required to submit an Annual Report. There still appears to be some confusion with who is authorized to act as the LRP or Authorized Signatory. It is fairly straight forward, if you have an ownership interest in the project you can be the LRP, if you have significant signatory authority for an organization you can be the LRP or Authorized Signatory. If you are the Construction Manager for the project you do not typically have the legal right to be either LRP or Authorized Signatory. A Contractor can be LRP if they have an ownership interest in the project, or they are authorized in writing by the Army Corp of Engineers for a specific Corp project.

SWPPP's

There appear to be a lot of small companies trying to get into the SWPPP writing business. There are also a good number civil engineering firms that try develop SWPPPs. For the most part I have found that these SWPPPs are less than adequate for several reasons. It appears that the people writing them have never been in field and wouldn't know BMP if it hit them sideways. The second is this concerted effort by certain firms to play with the Risk Analysis to ensure a project is listed as a Risk Level 1, gaming the system. It is my belief that they are doing their clients a great disservice by these practices, e.g. fudging the LS numbers on a significantly sloped site by just evaluating the pads, especially given that the project scope is major slope reinforcement because of slippage. Or tweaking the R Factor by not including all of the project phases, thereby reducing the Risk Level, at least until a COI is required for the next phase. There are times when this is appropriate, e.g. the final design or site disposition is not completed or certain...although a tentative schedule could be made. Or a design change or other significant addition or reduction in the projects scope/size.

Inspections

Over the past couple of years we have managed inspections on over a hundred projects, half of these Risk Level 2. As contract inspectors, we use only certified QSP's, and we have mentored many contractors to the point where they were able to take over the inspections once they had attained QSP credentials for themselves. Recently I have seen several cases where certain inspection services are bidding projects which allow their licensed QSPs to visit a site either every 2 weeks or once a month to pencil whip the inspection reports. Although in theory this practice is acceptable as the CGP allows that an unlicensed inspector who is adequately trained and under the direct supervision of a QSP may perform these tasks. The term adequately trained is far from clearly defined or enforced. I understand when a contractor employs a QSP, who in turn has the authority to train and direct others to perform inspections, BMP installation and maintenance. But I don't understand how an outside QSP has the authority to do anything except inspections given that those performing the tasks are not under their direct control. I believe that if contract inspectors are hired to perform inspections, that is what they should do and any deviation from this requirement is potentially compromising the integrity of the program. As an example, a contract QSP Inspector is tasked and is accountable for identifying potential issues on a project site and communicating those issues to the contractor. It is now clearly up to the contractor to implement the fixes required by the inspection report. But if you are delegating 3 out 4 inspections to a marginally trained contractor, who is to be held responsible for either the inspections or the fixes. I ask the question is, why would a QSP in good standing potentially risk their credibility and their license participating in this kind of charade. Perhaps that is because there has been less than significant over site or consequences for these behaviors, which is a shame because it compromises the integrity of the program overall.

Why we need to inspect...for a copy of the article "Inspector General"

email request to: info@calstormcompliance.com

Storm Water Thoughts...so far 2013 is turning into another good year so far. Despite Washingtons 's inability to do the real work of the people, projects are slowly getting underway.

A couple of interesting trends are noted on the CGP compliance requirements. First there are several companies and individuals that are choosing to flout the law and are not using qualified inspectors, and there appears to currently not being enforced

State of the California Construction General Permit (CGP)

State of the California Construction General Permit (CGP) OK, it's been a couple of years since the new permit (CGP) kicked in and slowly we are seeing some improvements with regards to people understanding the impact of compliance on their daily operations. The problem now is that inforcement has been somewhat lacks either because of a lack of State Inspector resources or as some speculate, maybe they are just turning a blind eye to non-compliance because of the sluggish economy. Regardless of the reason, I have noticed that some contractors are now wondering what all the fuss was about. It's regretible because we have made significant headway in certifying QSPs and QSDs, as well as educating contractors in general and City and County inspectors on basic storm water compliance. I heard from one inspector that the gloves are coming off this fall (2013) regarding site compliance and that citations for non-compliance will become the norm, including penalties for violations of the law.

Apparently the feeling at the Board is that 3 years have past since the permit became law, and there is no excuse at this point for non-compliance with the States Clean Water Regulations (CGP).

Annual Reports The reporting year for all active WDID Numbers runs from July 1st to June 30th. All projects which were active for 3 months (in actuality 60 plus days) within the reporting year are required to file an Annual Report by September 1st, 2013.

Caltrans Projects require their Annual Reporting to be submitted to them by July 15th, so that they can be sure to file with the state on time. Last year they started chasing Annual Report violators by mid-October, I am guessing they will now start using those manaditory minimum penalties for failure to file on time...or maybe not.

Remember if your project is active for 3 consecutive months (60 plus days) you must file an Annual Report before you can file your NOT.

QSP / QSD Training We have been running QSP / QSD Training for the past 18 months and have seen some great candidates go through the program and become successful inspectors. The big issue now is making sure that everyone is getting a sufficient number of continueing education units CEUs to meet the requirements of their underlying certifications (CISEC / CESSWI). These certifications require a total of 20 hours every two years.

As a result we are now providing these classes to meet this demand with 2 hour courses that not only meet the requirement, but were developed to meet real deficits in the original training that can be applied directly to the field.

BMP Implementation...

Here is a great example of high quality Silt Fence installed correctly, and I mean high quality, they used hardwood stakes.

"The Good"











"The Bad"


and "The Ugly..."

QSP / QSD Training in California

We are now down to less than 30 days until you will be required to be a QSP to inspect your projects. Even with the partisan dysfunctional behavior of Washington and Sacramento everything appears to be on track.

July's QSP/QSD class went well with 28 people attending, a good group of people with a lot of field experience and great interaction. The next class (QSP Only) is scheduled for August 12th and 13th and as of today, is more than half filled. As a result, I have had to schedule a 2nd class (QSP/QSD) this month for August 25th, 26th and 27th. I will also be teaching a CISEC class August 30th and 31st in Gardena. Despite all the bickering of our representatives, business continues to be looking up, and appears to be moving along in fits and starts. Currently we have around 8 SWPPPs on the books for the month, and the month is just starting, as well as a new series of QSP inspection contracts. Several new QSP's will start working for CAL-Storm next month. As to the various clients out there, well it's a mixed bag of private, public, state and local, as well as a smattering of federal. If there is one comment to make, it is that we have now reached a state where the consultants are consulting the consultants, with all the inherent issues of self justification that this process requires, specifically SWPPP reviewers with various levels of competency making comments in order to justify their positions with the agencies. Personally I like the challenge, and view it as peer review that allows me to see other perspectives, even when they appear to be inconsistent, and at times pedantic. If there is one thing that professional life has shown me, that is that we all operate with our own personal bias, and that although it is at times challenging to understand an others perspective, there is always a new opportunity to learn and improve the final deliverable.

On another note, I am still coming across GC's that do not have a clue, can you spell BMP? It amazes me to see organizations that have either because of ignorance, or arrogance, chosen to be oblivious to the changes around us. Knowledge and understanding of the regulations, documentation, BMPs, implementation and inspection requirements are the keys to controlling the cost of compliance. It's not a difficult concept, if you understand how the pieces fit together, you can develop the processes to minimize the impact to your bottom line.

To get people to understand the motivation, and neccessity behind these standards I use the analogy of air pollution in Southern California. Imagine what the air quality would look like had we not taken steps to reformulate the gasoline, combined with new emission controls 40 years ago. Given the amount of growth in this area the air quality of Mexico City would look like paradise compared to LA. But as a direct result we seldom have smog alerts warning people to not venture out or schools closed because of air quality issues. The other example I use is OSHA and safety in general. Many of us long for the good old days, when we weren't constantly scrutinized by these agencies, forgetting as an example, the time when old Charlie the factory worker, lost his arm in the machine and had the gaul to survive, he got sent home with no pension, no disability or other recourse, except a half days pay and a hearty "have a good life", next...(and so it went on with no improvements to safe working conditions.

According to the EPA, 40% of the waters of the US are unswimmable, unfishable, or undrinkable. You may have heard about how the Soviets managed it with centralized planning and how they in there "socialist" ways destroyed the pristine wilderness that was Siberia...we in our free market democracy should be able to do better, I do expect more...(Gulf Oil Spill, Yellowstone Pipeline, Exon Valdez)

What's wrong with this picture?