search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
in a presentation to the Water Board during summer 2021. From the way pollutants were to be


measured in the new CGP, to the increased costs to construction projects and other impractical requirements, AGC of Cali- fornia and the industry-wide coalition have vigorously advocated for an array of changes to the new CGP. Te largest and most impactful change in the new CGP is the inclusion of addi- tional Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollutants and their accompanying Nu- meric Action Levels (NALs) and Numeric Effluent Limitations (NELs). As the lan- guage is currently written, there is a lack of clarity surrounding the TMDLs and uncertainty on the feasibility of imple- mentation and ability to comply using available treatment technologies. A summary of industry concerns in-


clude: • Te Permit proposes numeric effluent limits (NELs) in some locations in Southern California; sampling nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, and toxic organics such as PCBs. Te NELs that are proposed are unachievable and will result in tens of millions of dollars in new costs for home builders, especially in Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Diego counties.


• The Permit proposes a “surrogate” measure of NEL exceedance using 100 milligrams per liter of total suspended solids (TSS); this value has no scientific basis or precedent in construction site runoff monitoring.


• Te Permit requires construction sites to use water treatment technologies that won’t meet the NELs for the pollutants identified in the CGP.


• The Permit may lead to legal enforcement actions taken against contractors by the state and by third party citizen lawsuits, which are allowed under the Clean Water Act.


AGC of California has taken a leading role advocating for construction industry interests on this key regulatory issue, collaborating with the Construction Industry Coalition for Water Quality, Caltrans, and California Alliance for Jobs to provide input and advocacy throughout the extended review process for the updated CGP that first got under way in the fall of 2020.


During the State Water Board hearing


on September 8, 2022, AGC of California provided a verbal comment and submit- ted a petition signed by 120 concerned parties. It was during this hearing that the Water Board adopted an updated CGP that included several changes that had been made to it since the most recent draft published on July 22, 2022. A summary of those changes include:


• Te submission of preliminary post- construction plans for NPDES Phase I and Phase II initially then submitting the final approved plans within 14 days of approval through a Change of Information in SMARTS (section IV.N.2.b).


• Removal of TMDL specific pollutant thresholds of TSS monitoring (attachment H, section I.G.a.vi.1).


• Allowance of reopening the permit before March 23, 2032 to revise


requirements implementing the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters TMDL for copper, lead, and zinc, for dischargers that discharge to the Dominguez Channel or the Torrance Lateral Channel (section VI.O.4).


• Removal of what constitutes the end of a qualifying precipitation event (attachment B).


• Clear definitions of when to conduct a pre-, during, or post-qualifying precipitation event visual inspections (attachment D, sections III.C.2-5). Tese changes address some of the concerns of the construction industry, which AGC of California was able to accomplish through diligent advocacy efforts and determination. Tere is still much more work to be done, and AGC of California will continue to vigorously advocate for industry interests on this important regulatory issue.


CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTOR NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2022


15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32