Construction Permit Timeline

Transcription

1

2 Construction Permit Timeline Previous permit Order DWQ expired in 2004 September 2, 2009: Order No DWQ Adopted Effective July 1, 2010 Existing Dischargers Continue to comply with the existing permit until July 1, Re apply under new permit. New dischargers File Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) electronically on our after July 1, 2010.

3 Permit Applicability Clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. Linear Utility Projects

4 ORDER NO DWQ This General Permit differs from Order DWQ in the following significant ways Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Technology Based Numeric Action Levels Technology Based Numeric Effluent Limitations Risk Based Permitting Approach Minimum Requirements Specified Project Site Soil Characteristics Monitoring and Reporting Effluent Monitoring and Reporting Receiving Water Monitoring and Reporting Post Construction Storm Water Performance Standards Rain Event Action Plan Annual Reporting Certification/Training Requirements for Key Project Personnel Linear Underground/Overhead Projects

5 Grandfathered Projects Grandfathered projects will be granted Risk Level 1 1 status Grandfathered Projects must be completed by 2 years after permit adoption (September 2, 2011) Regional Water Boards may require a risk assessment when: Site has a history of non compliance Site poses a significant risk to water quality

6 Why Set Numerical Limits? RWQCB position Provides consistent set of performance standards Numeric limits do not increase compliance requirements Only represent a point where you can measure compliance with the narrative effluent limitations in old CGP Compliance costs associated with numeric effluent limitations only differ by the costs required to measure compliance with the NELs Estimated the incremental cost at $1000, the estimated cost for a ph and turbidity meter. Costs could be greater if discharger is subject to many effluent monitoring events.

7 Permit Registration Documents PRD s s consist of: Notice of Intent (NOI), Risk Assessment, Site Map, SWPPP, Signed Certification Statement, First Annual Fee. Electronically filed by Legally Responsible Person (LRP) through SMARTS system LRP is the landowner, not the contractor

8 SMARTS Users State & Regional Water Board Staff External Users: Legally Responsible Person (LRP) Approved Signatory Data Submitters General Public

9 Risk Based Permitting A project s s overall risk is broken up into two elements: Receiving Water Risk the risk sediment discharges pose to the receiving waters. Project Sediment Risk the relative amount of sediment that can be discharged, which is driven largely by: Scheduling and Site characteristics.

10 Receiving Water Risk Sediment Sensitive Waterbodies CWA 303(d) list for waterbodies impaired for a sediment pollutant (TSS, turbidity, etc), USEPA approved Total Maximum Daily Load implementation plan for sediment, or Beneficial uses of COLD, SPAWN, and MIGRATORY TMDL/303(d) listing with construction as a source, must also comply with TMDL. TMDL/303(d) listing, but construction not a source, must consult with the State TMDL authority.

11 Sediment Risk Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) A = (R)(K)(LS)(C)(P) Where: A = the rate of sheet and rill erosion R = rainfall runoff runoff erosivity factor K = soil erodibility factor LS = length slope factor C = cover factor (erosion controls) P = management operations and support practices (sediment controls) The C and P factors are given values of 1.0 to simulate bare ground conditions. A = (R)(K)(LS)

12 Rainfall Runoff Runoff Erosivity Factor (R) An indication of the amount of rainfall and peak intensity sustained over period Online calculator: R Factor of 30.3 for rainy season project in Burlingame R Factor of 3.27 for dry season project in Burlingame Equation

13 Soil Erodibility (K) Soil Erodibility Factor represents: Susceptibility of soil or surface material to erosion, Transportability of the sediment, and Weighted average, by area, for all site soils

14 Length Slope Factor (LS) Computes the effect of slope length and steepness on erosion Generally speaking, as hillslope length and/or hillslope gradient increase, soil loss increases Weighted average, by area, for all slopes

15 Statewide Map K*LS Statewide Map K*LS

16 Soil Loss Values Mean and standard deviation R*K*LS values from the USEPA EMAP program. High risk is the mean R*K*LS value plus two standard deviations. Low risk is the mean R*K*LS value minus two standard deviations.

17 Soil Erodibility Factor (K) The K factor can be determined by using the nomograph method, which requires that a particle size analysis (ASTM D 422) D be done to determine the percentages of sand, very fine sand, silt and clay. Must represent weighted average, by area, across entire site.

18 Length Slope Factor (LS) Length Slope Factor tables available from USDA Agricultural Handbook 703, Predicting Soil Erosion By Water. Must represent weighted average, by area, across entire site.

19 Combined Risk Level Matrix

20 Risk Level 1 BMPs only Narrative Effluent Standards Good Site Housekeeping Sediment Controls Run on & Runoff Controls (limited) Inspection, Maintenance & Repair Visual Monitoring

21 Risk Level 2 Risk Level 1 requirements, plus Numeric Action Levels Turbidity: 250 NTU (Event Daily Average) ph: (Event Daily Average) Additional sediment control requirements Rain Event Action Plan Effluent monitoring

22 Risk Level 3 Risk Level 2 requirements, plus Numeric Effluent Limitations (NEL) Turbidity 500 NTU (Event Daily Average) ph: (Event Daily Average) Additional sediment control requirements Receiving water monitoring (if NEL is exceeded) Bioassessment (in some cases)

23 Rain Event Action Plan Risk Level 2 and 3 sites A written document, specific for each rain event. Designed to protect all exposed portions of the site within 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event. (forecast: 50% or greater probability)

24 Effluent Monitoring

25 Effluent Monitoring Qualifying Rain Event: Any event that produces 0.5 inches or more precipitation with a 48 hour or greater period between rain events. Daily Average Discharge (40 CFR 122.2): The discharge of a pollutant measured during any 24 hour period that reasonably represents a calendar day for purposes of sampling. Storm Event Daily Average Discharge: The average of the Daily Average Discharges over a particular storm event. Collect, maintain, and ship samples in accordance with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program s s (SWAMP) 2008 QualityAssurance Program Plan (QAPrP).

26 Numeric Action Levels (NALs) There are no NALs for Risk Level 1 Risk Level 2 and 3 Sites ph: (Event Daily Average) Turbidity: 250 NTU (Event Daily Average) Non punitive, but NAL Exceedance Report must be submitted to RWQCB Corrective action must be taken by discharger

27 NAL Exceedance Report Electronically submit all storm event sampling results to the State and Regional Water Boards Risk Level 2 within 10 days Risk Level 3 within 5 days Requires a run on and Site evaluation to determine sources and update BMPs and SWPPP NAL Exceedance Report is available to the general public

28 Numeric Effluent Limits Numeric Effluent Limits for Risk Level 3 sites: ph: 6 9 (Event Daily Average) Turbidity: 500 NTU (Event Daily Average) NELs are different from NALs in that Exceedances of the NELs are a violation of [the CGP]. Compliance with NEL does not necessarily mean compliance with receiving water limitations. SF Basin Plan WQO Turbidity Increases from normal that are relatable to waste discharge can t t be greater than 10 percent in areas where natural turbidity is greater than 50 NTU.

29 NEL Exceedance Report Submit a NEL Exceedance Report to the to the SWRCB within 24 hours after exceedance has been identified. Submit all storm event sampling results to the SWRCB within 5 days after the conclusion of the event. Monitor upstream and downstream of discharge into receiving waters for all parameters for the duration of coverage. If NEL has been exceeded during a storm event equal to or larger than the Compliance Storm Event, report the on site rain gauge readying and nearby governmental readings for verification.

30 NEL Exceedance Report NEL Exceedance Report is available to the general public

31 Compliance Storm Event Compliance Storm Event = 5 year 5 24 hour storm Only applies to Risk Level 3 (and Active Treatment Systems) sites with NELs. NELs must be met for all storms smaller than the Compliance Storm Event Western Regional Climate Center Precipitation Frequency Maps SF Bay Area 2.5 to 3 inches of rain in 24 hours at Bay level Verification must be done with onsite rain gauge readings as well as nearby governmental rain gauge readings.

32 Receiving Water Monitoring

33 Receiving Water Monitoring If NEL is exceeded and there is direct discharge to receiving water, Risk Level 3 shall monitor for the duration of coverage ph (if applicable), Turbidity, and SSC Bioassessment for certain Risk Level 3 sites: Equal or greater than 30 acres Direct discharges to receiving waters Before and after site completion

34 Active Treatment Systems Defined as those treatment systems that add chemicals to facilitate flocculation, coagulation, and filtration of suspended sediment. Treatment without chemicals are not considered ATS Not explicitly required for different Risk Levels For use in instances where traditional controls are inadequate. Not something to be selected lightly

35 Active Treatment Systems Entire appendix to the CGP addresses the Design criteria, Performance criteria, Monitoring, Reporting, Instrumentation

36 Active Treatment Systems Capture and treat (within a 72 hour period) volume equivalent to a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Not 5 year, 5 24 hour event for traditional BMPs SF Bay Area 3.5 inches in 24 hours 27,000 gal/ac under old CGP 100,000 gal/ac Numeric Effluent Limitations: 10 NTU for Daily Flow Weighted Average 20 NTU for Any Single Sample Residual Chemical shall be < 10% of Maximum Allowable Threshold Concentration

37 Post Construction Controls Match Pre and Post runoff volumes Emphasis on Low Impact Development (LID) Not covered by an active Phase I or Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit that has an approved SWMP

38

39 Potential Implications Difficult to predict Still some questions regarding letter vs. intent BMPs for Risk Level 3 Site Much more aggressive erosion control measures to prevent mobilization of sediment (as opposed to sediment removal) Designed BMPs with treatment capacities to Compliance Storm Event Strong incentives to manage grading to reduce exposed soil

40 SWPPP Potential Implications Additional effort to implement SWPPP with Rain Event Action Plans Sampling programs Risk 3 sites will likely need to be conservative or risk CGP violation, fines, and additional monitoring requirements based upon results of one storm event. Monitoring and Reporting Approach to stormwater monitoring will change to address NEL s specified as an event daily average. If a NEL is exceeded in one sample, immediate response and additional stormwater data collection will be needed during that storm event

41 Potential Implications Much easier to directly violate the Clean Water Act Exceeding Numeric Effluent Limitations Failure to submit NAL/NEL Exceedance or other reports Incorrectly implementing prescriptive BMPs required by CGP

42 Potential Implications of ATS Very significant and explicit performance criteria. 10 year, 24 hour design storm criterion will require substantial storage or large peak flow treatment capacity Many of the treatment systems will be oversized for the actual treatment volume at extra expense Toxicity testing requirements are a Pandora's Box that will require backup plans for stormwater discharges if failed. A lot of forward planning it rains everywhere at once

43 Potential Implications of ATS ATS vendors will need time to make sure systems meet CGP criteria and that operators are trained. Initial projects with ATS will have a steep learning curve Example: 40 acre development with ATS $200,000 per rainy season storage provided by contractor.

44 Increased Cost of Implementation $30,000 to $50,000 per acre (a) Approximately $5,000 to $40,000 per acre depending upon site risk level (b) a) Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality b) Economic Analysis of the 2008 Draft General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Berkeley Economic Consulting, 11 June 2008

45 What are the Risks? Legally Responsible Party is the landowner, who may not be entity responsible for the implementation of the CGP Potential liability for administrative enforcement or citizen lawsuits is high due to very discrete violation criteria and readily available data Any violation of the Permit subjecting site owners to possible fines and other penalties.

46 How to Manage Risk? Contract documents and agreements need to be clear about indemnification, defense, payment of penalties, etc., to help appropriately allocate liability. Contractual indemnities and defense provisions with SWPPP Developer SWPPP Implementer Contractors Third Party Audits Field inspections Paper audits Sampling audits

47 Thank You