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?

Storm Water Thoughts June 1st 2011

3 months and counting. September 2nd is fast approaching to meet the State QSP Certification requirement. To recap earlier posts, every active construction site that is subject to the CGP must have a QSP assigned to perform weekly inspections, as well pre-rain, post rain and others. Other requirements for QSPs include, REAPs, Rain Event Action Plans,and testing and sampling of storm water for turbidity and pH on Risk Level 2 and 3 sites. The training requirements for a QSP are: field experience, formal training, application and acceptance into either the CISEC, Certified Inspector in Sediment & Erosion Control, or CESSWI, Certified Erosion, Sediment & Storm Water Inspector Programs (2 days / $350 +/-). You must be preapproved to sit for the exam on the second day for either program. (Check out CISEC or CESSWI website for application requirements) The second requirement is to complete the QSP class from a registered Trainer of Record (2 days / $400 +/-)(Check out CASQA website for ToR Schedule). Once you have your QSP class scheduled, then schedule your QSP class through the State Training Academy link on the CASQA website. There is no charge for testing. The test is open book, i.e. the Construction General Permit, and it is absolutely essential to read the permit as well as taking the class. You must present your offical CA ID and Letter of Completion from the ToR to sit for this exam. Each organization or company is making decisions on the number of QSPs needed to meet the requirements. Issues to consider are: number of projects, geographic spread of projects, risk level of projects etc. Each of these factors will go into the decision as to how many QSPs are needed, e.g. a couple projects in close proximity to each other could be legitimately handled by a single QSP.

QSP / QSD 6 Months and Counting

It appears that there is still a great deal of confusion over the certification requirements of California's New Construction General Permit. In a nutshell, you must possess the pre-requisite certifications of a QSD, Qualified SWPPP Developer, to develop a SWPPP (after July 1st, 2010). These pre-requisite certifications consist of: CA-PE, CA-Architect, CPESC or CPSWQ. Anyone preparing a SWPPP without these qualifications is basically committing fraud with their clients. By September 1st 2011, individuals preparing a SWPPP will also need to have successfully completed a QSD class (24hrs typically) and passed the California State QSD Exam.



On the other hand anyone with the assigned responsibility and minimal training can perform the tasks of a QSP, Qualified SWPPP Practitioner until September 1st 2011, unless contractually specified otherwise. These tasks typically consist of performing the required weekly inspections, both written and visual, (all Risk Levels), as well as REAP, Rain Event Action Plans, and Turbidity and pH testing for Risk Level 2 and 3 sites. The QSP certification process consists of 4 basic steps; the first is general storm water, BMP, SWPPP training and experience, the 2nd step is the pre-qualification certifications of CISEC, (Certified Inspector, Sediment & Erosion Control-16hrs) or CESSWI (Certified Erosion Sediment & Storm Water Inspector-16hrs, (you must be pre-approved by these organizations to sit for the exam), the 3rd step is to take the QSP class (typically 16hrs) from a state certified Trainer of Record, and the final step is take the state exam at a state approved site, typically a RWQCB office or University.



It does not matter if you take the QSP class first or the CISEC/CESSWI programs first. The focus is different, yet complimentary for each step. The CISEC/CESSWI programs focus on understanding the responsibilities of a storm water inspector and both of these programs have a national (not just California) perspective. On the other hand the QSP class focuses specifically on the New California Construction General Permit, and your ability to navigate through it quickly and efficiently. The QSP exam is multiple choice and a copy of the permit is provided with all of the attachments, i.e. an open book test, but it's a big book. You must provide a letter from your Trainer of Record and CA-ID to sit for the exam. The exam is free, but closely monitored. The exams are currently booked solid until the summer as of this post.

As you can see California is trying to get people to realize that Storm Water is not a token issue assigned to the project intern. This effort is designed to get California compliant with national standards, apparently we have been lacking, and non-compliance potentially impacts our ability to get federal funding for new projects (jobs).

Compliance may seem dificult at first, but understanding and a little knowledge will ensure cost effective compliance...think OSHA or Smog Devices on Cars in California, and the improvements to our overall quality of life.

Storm Water Thoughts...Inspector Impersonators

In the past two weeks I have heard disturbing news that there are individuals out there representing themselves as "Regional Water Quality Inspectors". If someone enters your office or building site, make sure that people claiming to be a RWQCB Inspectors, actually are, and not someone trying to sell you product or services. It's an old scam used occasionally throughout the country. An individual impersonates an official inspector of a given Agency, e.g. OSHA, EPA, RWQCB, etc. The goal is to make you afraid that you are in gross violation, and then either extort money from you to keep quiet, or sell you product that you may or may not need. These people have an agenda, and its not necessarily in your interest, they will say anything to get you to part with your money.

California Help Impersonating a police officer?
b) Any person who falsely represents himself or herself to be a public officer, investigator, or

inspector

in any state department and who, in that assumed character, does any of the following shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison:

(1) Arrests, detains, or threatens to arrest or detain any person.

(2) Otherwise intimidates any person.

(3) Searches any person, building, or other property of any person.

(4) Obtains money, property, or other thing of value


Oakland police arrest man in bogus inspector case
Associated Press
11/25/09 7:20 PM PST
OAKLAND, CALIF. — Oakland police have arrested a man they say was shaking down business owners by pretending to be a labor inspector.
Police say Michael Bolanos was taken into custody after reports that a man with a badge was walking into small businesses, pretending to be a state or federal inspector and claiming to have found violations that would result in expensive fines.
Bolanos would then allegedly take payments of $350 to $800 from the business owner.
Investigators say since arresting Bolanos on Nov. 4, they have found 19 business owners who were victimized.
Oakland police Officer Dave Wong says Bolanos has been charged with multiple felony counts of theft and extortion and misdemeanor counts of impersonating a state officer.
Bolanos has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Suspect apprehended after posing as Cal/OSHA inspectorSACRAMENTO --A paroled felon who allegedly victimized several minority-owned small businesses in the Los Angeles County area by posing as a Cal/OSHA inspector was recently arrested in a joint Cal/OSHA sting operation conducted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Major Crimes Unit.
The suspect, Mark Dwayne Jackson, threatened to impose severe monetary fines and penalties for non-existent safety violations unless the owners agreed to a cash settlement. In return Jackson promised not to issue citations against them.
Jackson presented false OSHA identification cards bearing the name of one of the inspectors with the Cal/OSHA Anaheim High Hazard Unit.
Jackson was apprehended after a business owner agreed to be wired and pass marked money to the suspect. The suspect was arrested at the scene of the owner's business.
After a search warrant was obtained, investigation of Jackson's home and vehicle turned up evidence of OSHA paraphernalia and false OSHA identification cards bearing a colored photograph of the suspect and the name of a Cal/OSHA inspector. Also discovered were names and addresses of other potential business victims.
The suspect will be charged with penal code violation 146a(b)(2), impersonating a state officer.
"We hope business owners take heed of this case in Los Angeles to avoid a similar experience," said John Howard, Cal/OSHA chief. "Impersonation of a Cal/OSHA inspector undermines the real work of Cal/OSHA which is to protect workplace safety and health."
Beware: Fake Inspector 'Forgives' Fines for Cash
The California Department of Industrial Relations' Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is investigating several incidents involving a man impersonating a Cal/OSHA inspector and suspected of defrauding restaurant owners. According to Cal/OSHA, several similar incidents have occurred across the southern part of the state, in the costal region near Santa Barbara and in Roseville.
Cal/OSHA reports that after producing what appears to be a valid identification, the suspect inspects the worksite finding alleged safety violations that, according to him, add up to thousands of dollars in fines. The suspect then informs the business owner that he will not issue citations if they give him cash immediately.
"It is important for all employers to know that a Cal/OSHA inspector will never request payment on-site, under any circumstance. Moreover, an inspector will never request payment in lieu of citations," said Acting Division Chief Len Welsh. "We encourage all employers to ask for a state identification card and a business card. If the employer has suspicions that the individual is not a true Cal/OSHA representative, additional verification may be obtained by calling Cal/OSHA's local office to ask about the individual."
Business owners should know that Cal/OSHA citations are payable only after issuance of a citation, and the preferred method is through the mail to the California Department of Industrial Relations' Accounting Unit. All payment details are clearly spelled out on the citation itself when it is issued. If an inspector ever requests payment on-site for any reason, employers are urged to call Cal/OSHA headquarters immediately at 510-286-7000. Cal/OSHA will then contact local law enforcement officials.
Worksite health and safety inspections are typically conducted with no prior notice, and Cal/OSHA representatives identify themselves to the employer by showing their State of California Photo Identification Card and Division of Occupational Safety and Health business card prior to conducting an inspection.
The Roseville Police Department has issued a warrant for the arrest of a man who they believe was part of two recent incidents involving impersonating a Cal/OSHA inspector

Beware these people are out there.

Storm Water Thoughts...Credentials

It's been a while since I last wrote on this site. I've been very busy making a living, writing SWPPPs, doing Site Inspections, speaking at conferences and providing NPDES Training to numerous companies. I just heard the other day that there are people in California passing themselves off as QSPs, Qualified SWPPP Practitioners, and QSDs, Qualified SWPPP Developers. I've written about this before, but apparently there is still some misunderstanding. Per the new California Construction General Permit (CGP) or NPDES Permit, individuals developing SWPPPs must by July 1st of 2010, be precertified (per Section VII of CGP Permit, or Table 9 of the Fact Sheet)see table below.


On the other hand a QSP must be certified by September 2nd 2011. So what does this all mean. In the case of the QSD, as mentioned, you must have successfully completed the pre-requirements (see table above) to develop a SWPPP after July 1st of 2010 and complete a QSP/QSD class (provided by a State Registered Trainer of Record, CASQA)and RWQCB Exam prior to September 2nd 2011 to continue on as a QSD after September 2 2011. The QSP on the other hand needs to complete the pre-requirements (see table above) and then take a QSP class(provided by a State Registered Trainer of Record, CASQA)and RWQCB exam prior to September 2 2011. Unless stipulated by contract requirement, the QSP is not neccessary until September 2, 2011. The QSP/QSD class takes 3 days (24hrs) and covers the Construction General Permit. The first 2 days meet the QSP requirements, the 3rd day meets the QSD requirements. If you are checking to see if your SWPPP preparer (QSD) meets the pre-requirements and you know they are not a California PE, check out the following website: http://www.cpesc.org/ , if you want to see if your Inspector / BMP Installer (QSP)meets the pre-requirements check out the following websites: http://www.cesswi.org/ci-default.asp , or http://cisecinc.org/
Although the QSP requirement doesn't go into force until September 2nd of 2011, I am seeing contracts daily that have built the requirement into the specifications already.

I have seen a great demand for training for people that need to get into the QSP pipeline so there organizations will be ready when all projects will require a QSP. To understand the QSP process, depending on your experience and training, you may require formal training prior to entering a CISEC or CESSWI program, remember you can sign up for the class anytime, but you cannot take the class exam without pre-approval by these organizations (CISEC or (CESSWI)InviroCert), I have recently heard pre-approval is taking 30 to 45 days. The CISEC or CESSWI review class and exam take 2 days, the primary focus is on Inspection, and is based on a National Model (EPA) with what I would call a municipal perspective. The QSP class, provided by a State registered Trainer of Record, see CASQA site for specifics: http://www.casqa.org/ , including names of companies and a calender of classes from various providers. The QSP Class takes 2 days, and the focus is on learning how to navigate through the California Construction General Permit. Through the CASQA site you can also sign into the State Water Board Training Academy to reserve a seat for testing. You must provide proof of QSP class attendence and ID when you go take your test (approx 3 hrs). If you have questions with regards to best strategy for your organization with regards to QSPs, how many do I need etc., feel free to contact me at (949) 351-1547.

July 1st, 2010 The New NPDES Permit is here

The new NPDES Permit is here, but what does that mean for you. Over the past 30 days I have been heavily involved with updating existing SWPPP's to bring them in line with the new permit requirements, and then posting them on the SMARTS site with the State. The process is simple enough, the LRP...Legally Responsible Person (Owner) receives a notice from the State to create an account and certify an existing NOI. The LRP is provided with a SCN or Secret Code Number which is linked to the WDID number from the NOI. Once the LRP registers and validates the NOI they can then add data submitters like the GC and consultants such as me. The LRP must be provided the USER ID's of the data submitters to add them into the system. With this accomplished the data submitter has full visibility of all projects that are linked to that USER ID, and can now log into each and perform updates as needed such as uploading the SWPPP.

As to credentials, and people that are qualified to perform these tasks.

Under the new permit it clearly states that you must be a QSP, Qualified SWPPP Practitioner to perform BMP inspections and supervise the installation of BMP's. The QSP training and testing do not exist as yet, but are slated to come on line (be available) sometime in the next 60 days. The prequalifications for becoming a QSP are that you possess a CA-PE, (CA-Professional Engineer) CISEC (Certified Inspector of Sediment and Erosion Control) or CESSWI (Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Inspector). All these certifications require formal and informal training, as well as time in the field (industry). It is my understanding that inspections must be performed by individuals with the required prequalification’s until training and the QSP exam are fully available with some added time (Sept 2011).

Under the new permit you must be a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer) to write a SWPPP and make amendments to an existing plan. The QSD training and testing do not exist as yet, but are slated to come on line (be available) sometime in the next 60 days. The prequalification’s to be a QSD are: CA-PE, CPESC (Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control) or CPSWQ (Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality). All these certifications require formal and informal training, as well as time in the field (industry). It is my understanding that all SWPPP's developed after July 1st must be developed by individuals with at least the prerequisite credentials until the QSD training and exams are generally available, and that this testing must be accomplished by a given date (as yet somewhat ambiguous to me).

New California NPDES Permit

I wanted to provide a quick overview of the New California NPDES Permit, and how it will impact estimators, project managers and field personnel. Initially there are 8 points to consider.
1st. Tier 1, 2, 3, Risk Assessment of the project site. 2nd. Turbidity & pH testing for all Tier 2 & 3 sites. 3rd. NEL's, Numeric Effluent Limits, have been established for the state. 4th. NAL's, Numeric Action Levels have been established for the state. 5th. REAP, Rain Event Action Plans, will be required for all Tier 2 & 3 sites. 6th. Receiving Water and Bioassessment evaluation and testing for some Tier 3 sites. 7th. State Standardized Exams for QSP, Qualified Stormwater Practitioner, and QSD, Qualified Stormwater Developer. 8th. Electronic submission of all PRD's. All in all a good collection of new standards, requiring a much deeper understanding of Storm Water related Documentation, BMP's, Inspection and run-off. People will need serious training to comply on each project site, and the state claims it will balance the budget with the fines levied against violators...just kidding, maybe?

New NPDES Permit/SWPPP's & Inspection

OK, it has been a while since I last updated this Blog. The reason, we've been busy writing SWPPP's, WPCP's, doing Inspections, Training people how to spell BMP, and overall trying to provide the right combination of materials and labor to our many clients. It has been an interesting 6 months, many former clients are no longer around, many have downsized and others, well they're just waiting for the compliance violation shoe to drop. You're probably not surprised that compliance, viewed by many as unimportant in light of the economic times, has taken a backseat because of budget constraints, both on the part of contractors, as well as a lack of effective enforcement by Cities, and the State, etc. It's understandable, contractors are in a highly competitive environment just to win work and survive, and the state, which is virtually in a bankrupt position due to reasons best not discussed in polite company, have limited their resources. The result is that contractors seek to skirt around the regulations, and the City and State Inspectors are few and far between because lack of staff resources, lack of training resources, or just lack.

Hopefully, if you're in the business of storm water compliance in the State of California, you are aware that there is a new NPDES Permit...as in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (September 2nd, 2009) that will be brought into force on July 1st, 2010. Translated, this is the states answer to past EPA/CWA non-compliance trespasses. Basically this permit is the state promising the Feds (for Federal $ of course) that they will follow and enforce the regulations established in the Clean Water Act in its current and ever evolving phasing process, as interpreted by the EPA. The new NPDES Permit has a number of things that will change and hopefully improve storm water runoff quality through the tightening up of the filing submittals process, the project evaluation process, and the runoff monitoring process including sample testing (TMDLs etc.).

Some basic rules, any site over an acre must have a SWPPP, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Every project requiring a SWPPP is required to file a NOI, Notice of Intent w/fees, unless there is a prior existing permit, e.g. some cities, water districts, Caltrans etc., and then they will require a NOC, Notice of Construction. Each project must be assessed individually, but some form of documentation is absolutely essential. ($5000 fine) for failure to file is hardly worth the cost of filing for the NOI, FYI the NOI fees are determined/stated in an established schedule published by the state and fees are based on acreage (remember always round up), e.g. one acre with the current surcharge is $317, subject to change of course. Currently there are many SWPPP formats, but the standards are CASQA and Caltrans, all others are typically hybrids of these two that have been developed by an energetic consulting community, helping Cities, Counties and Water Districts be different. Oh, and also making it difficult for amateurs to develop SWPPP's. The new NPDES Permit will hopefully usher in some standardization of the SWPPP Templates again.

The final point I wanted to make today is in regards to training and the qualifications of both inspectors and SWPPP developers. The new NPDES permit spells out the minimum requirements for an authorized storm water BMP inspector, specifically that a non-PE must be either a CISEC or CESSWI, a CISEC is a Certified Inspector in Sediment and Erosion Control, a CESSWI is a Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Inspector. The prep class for the tests are available frequently, but prior to testing an individual must be approved to sit for the exam by providing proof that they have an adequate understanding of the requirements to be an Erosion & Sediment Control Inspector through classes, seminars, field work etc. Once certified as a CISEC or CESSWI, the state will require additional coursework, currently under development, followed by the successful passing of a state exam by September 2011, to be considered state approved/certified.

The prerequisites to become a qualified SWPPP preparer requires that if you are not a qualified PE then you must be a CPESC, Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control. Once qualified as a CPESC, the state will also require additional coursework, and a state exam prior to September 2011 to be considered state approved/certified.

New NPDES Permit/State of the Industry

Clear Water Thoughts / To Silt Fence or Not

There are a lot of ways of installing silt fence, the problem is that more often than not, it's the wrong way. Ok, so what's so hard about installing silt fence properly. There are a few key things to understand and remember to do it right. The first is that silt fence, as shown in the drawing below is designed to be installed in a trench, typically 6" deep and 6" wide so that the fabric forms an L shape in the trench. The second point is that the back fill over the silt fence in the trench must be compacted in order to secure the fabric properly. The silt fence posts must be located on the downhill side of the fabric, so that the fabric when under water pressure from runoff does not pull away from the stakes securing the fabric. Finally the joining of each length of silt fence (100') must not only overlap, but actually spin the end posts 1 full turn of of the fabric prior to pounding in the stakes.

There are several tricks to installing silt fence properly, and I think one of the best is to trench down 12" and backfill 6", this technique reduces the number of broken stakes considerably.
The second trick is to stretch the fabric straight and level between the stakes, and reinforce the attachment of fabric and stake with a zip tie.

Remember the next time you see blue sky under the silt fence, it's in wrong and will do nothing to minimize sediment flow. Silt Fence is also not designed to be placed in a direct flow of water, e.g. accross a stream, dry or otherwise, because it will blow out quickly. On the other hand, it is excellent when installed a foot or so out from the toe of the slope. The other key element for silt fence to be effective is maintenance. Silt will settle on the uphill side of the silt fence, and will bulge out. It is critical that these sediment materials be removed prior to the next rain event. Finally silt fence can be used in combination with other BMP's, for example a gravel bag berm on the uphill side of the fence may be needed to help control and minimze the water pressure against the actual fence. Remember the idea behind these BMP's is to slow the water down long enough so that the sediment has an opportunity to drop out and settle.

What's in your bag?

Over the last few years I have become aware that most people feel that a sand bag is a sand bag, is a sand bag. But there is a difference, especially if we are talking about compliance with the NPDES permit and specifically using the right type of bag for the job.

Sand Bags, i.e. bags filled with "sand", have a specific, and limited application to either become part of a dam or to divert storm water around a working area (run-on control).

Gravel Bags, specifically bags filled with birds eye (5/16") gravel, are the bag of choice in most jurisdictions because they allow water to slow down as it passes through and therefor allows the sediment to drop out (settle) behind the bag. The advantage is that it reduces the amount storm water de-watering required, as it allows water passing out of the site to be sediment free.

Rock Bags, typically 3/4" Rock is specified and often required by jurisdictions with especially fine silts which might clog regular gravel bags and therefor become ineffective except as a dam.

So, why is the wrong bag in the wrong application on the job, it isn't cost, because the pricing is usually the same, or relatively close, no, the reason is a lack of understanding, either by the inspector, the contractor or both. Do the bag suppliers know the difference? They should, or you may as well use dirt bags...Oh, that's right, some people still do.

Linear BMP,s Gravel Bags

So now you've had time to consider Worst Practices, but what about Best Practices? What are Best Practices? Best Management Practices, BMP's are a combination of materials and procedures to minimize sediment and other pollutants from entering the storm drain system. These BMP's can be used singly or in combination with other BMP's. The following is a simple description of basic linear BMP's used to protect areas outside of the construction zone. The first consists of a Gravel Bag Berm, which typically consists of a double high line of gravel bags placed along the perimeter of a project. The objective of this Bag Berm is to slow rain related run-off long enough that the sediments settle or dropout behind the bags, and that only Clear Water runs out of a site. The same objective is achieved using check dams and gravel bag chevrons, on sloped areas with added benefit that the run-off is also slowed down sufficiently to reduce water velocity and therefore the effects of erosion on the slope surface.

As you can see from the pic on the lower right, it is far from a perfect science, but if implemented properly can go a long way to mitigating contaminated run-off.

Also keep in mind that the new EPA standards will be adopted by the revised California NPDES Permit, which in turn means your TMDLs will be much more tightly monitored.

Clear Water Thoughts Tuesday March 24th 2009

Recently I stopped in at a local electronics store and noticed that the adjoining construction site was not protecting the inlets and perimeter properly. I find it interesting that in this day and age, in Orange County that I would see such a poor implementation of basic BMP's. It's one thing to have properly installed BMP's fail when you have a sudden heavy rain, it's another to choose not to properly implement and install them in the first place. The problem is pretty basic, either because of ignorance or neglect this contractor looks like they don't care enough to protect the perimeter and the storm drain system. You say, so what a little dirt goes down the storm drain, along with other pollutants, but do you realize that this dirty water flows straight into the ocean with no treatment. The storm drain system is designed to take away rain water, not construction contaminated rain water. As it stands now, cities, counties, the state and therefor we the people get to pay for the clean up. It costs millions of dollars a year to maintain the storm drain system, a significant part of the clean up is from trash discarded in the street, but a significant portion of the sediments and other chemicals can be traced back to construction. If you know of any particularly nasty sights in Southern California, please share the info here so we can get on them to stop mucking up our world.

Worst Practices 03/23/09

As you may well know the Clean Water Act, and specifically the states NPDES Permit are the guiding documents for Storm Water issues within the state (Ca). I was recently in Orange County Ca, and saw a great example of worst practices, as opposed to best practices. Being a certified erosion & sediment control person, I was absolutely amazed to see the complete lack of understanding of basic controls, and proper implementation. There appeared to be little or no regard for either the environment, the regulations, the construction companies reputation as a polluter or the trade craft of erosion & sediment control. I realize that budgets are beyond tight, but I also realize that failure to implement properly, the most basic of BMP's, Best Management Practices, violates us all. It allows pollutants, sediment and other contaminants to flow into our storm drains and straight out to the ocean. As you probably know storm drains, unlike sewers, have no treatement and flow straight into the streams and rivers and ultimately to the ocean.