Comments and Suggested Changesto the

Construction Stormwater General Permit

June 4th 2008

Presented by theActive Treatment Systems Workgroup

ATS Workgroup

Applauds the SWRCB for this process.

Who, What, Why

• Who makes up the ATS Workgroup• ProTech General Contracting Services• Clear Creek Systems• Clear Water Compliance Services• HaloSource

• What we are presenting• Why ATS is beneficial on construction sites

What we are presenting

• History of ATS Regulation• CA CVRWQCB Guidance Document• WA DOE Technical Review Committee

• Final Draft GCP guidelines - positive• Safeguarding with automated monitoring• Trained and certified operators• Residual testing for chemical additives

What we are presenting continued

• ATS Feasibility– Influent/Effluent Data with Percent

Reduction– Economic Feasibility

• ATS Capabilities• Recommendations

Influent/Effluent/Percent Reduction

Typical Projects Utilizing ATS

Project Location AverageBackground

SystemSize

(GPM)

Coagulant Average Influent Turb. (NTU)

Average Effluent

Turb. (NTU)

Percent Reduction

Kammerer lane 90.2 1800 Chitosan 1517 15 99%

Pleasant Grove Creek 4.34 600 Chitosan 1088 1.8 99%

North Slough Creek 49.53 600 Chitosan 399 16 96%

Rancho Cordova, CA 29.6 600 Chitosan 409 2.49 99%

Oceanside, CA 196 200 Chitosan 255 0.5 99%

Roseville CA 33 2400 Chitosan 893 2.5 99%

Economic Feasibility

Typical Projects Utilizing ATS

Project Location Project Size (AC)

System Size

(GPM)

Coagulant Range Influent Turb. (NTU)

EffluentTurb. (NTU)

Cost/Acre

Kammerer lane 105 1800 Chitosan 548-4792 15 $3,267.00

Pleasant Grove Creek

20 600 Chitosan 846-1780 1.8 $6,000.00

Lincoln CA 40 600 PAC 300-800 23 $2,883.00

Roseville CA 800 2400 Dadmac 600-1000+ 12 $ 750.00

Oceanside, CA 8 200 Chitosan 210-331 0.5 $3,775.00

Roseville CA 400 2400 Chitosan 365-1420 2.5 $1,758.00

CapabilitiesATS Dataset

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

Time

Tu

rbid

ity

Influent

Pretreatment

Effluent

Background

Aquatic Impacts of Turbidity

Source: http://www.lakeaccess.org/russ/turbidity.htm

Mortality, Reproduction and Behavioral and the Impact of Suspended Solids

Lethal Effects - Mortality• Rainbow Trout – (Acute) 200 mg/L for 24 hr leads to 5% mortality in fry• Rainbow Trout – (Chronic) 21 mg/L for 48 days leads to 62% reduction in egg-to-fry

survival• Chinook Salmon – (Acute) 82k mg/L for 6 hr leads to 60% mortality of juveniles• Chinook Salmon – (Chronic) 488 mg/L for 8 days leads to 50% mortality of smolts

Sublethal Effects - Reproduction• CutthroatTrout – 35 mg/L for 2 hr leads to feeding ceased, cover sought• Coho Salmon – 300 mg/L for 1 hr leads to feeding ceased

Behavioral Effects – Modified Behaviors• Whitefish – 0.7 mg/L for 1 hr leads to overhead cover abandoned• Arctic Greyling – 100 mg/L for 1 hr leads to avoidance response

C.P. Newcombe,. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of Suspended Sediments on Aquatic Ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72-82. 1991

Aquatic Impacts of Turbidity

Turbidity Levels at or above which Adverse Effects are estimated to occur to Clear Water Fish (NTUs)

Duration Slight impairment [behavioral effects]

Significant effects [to growth and habitat]

Severe impairment [habitat alienation]

1 hour 38 160 -

2 hours 28 120 -

3 hours 23 100 -

8 hours 15 65 -

24 hours 10 39 440

5 days 5 19 215

3 weeks 3 10 115

>10 months - 3 35

Source: Newcombe, 2003, in OR DEQ 2005

Recommendations

• 1000 NTU NEL should be reduced– Example:

– Consider a 500 gpm flow at 1000 NTU, 8 hours a day for a 5 day week. Assume 1000 NTU = 1000 mg/L TSS (this is a conservative assumption).

– 500 gpm x 60 min x 8 hrs x 5 days = 1.2 Million gal per week– 1000 mg/L x 3.8 L/gal = 3800 mg/gal– 1.2 M gal x 3800 mg/gal = 4560 kg or about 10,000 lbs– Assume a sediment density of 60 lbs/ft3– 10,000 lbs/60 lbs/ft3 = 167 ft3– This equals around 2 Cubic Yards of sediment/week or a

standard dump truck per month.

Recommendations

• Attachment J should be removed• Attachment E, page 1, 3.a

• Current: “Active Treatment Systems will be designed and approved by qualified personnel: CPESC, CPSWQ, registered civil or other professional engineers with a minimum of 10 years demonstrated construction stormwater treatment system design experience. ”

• Recommendation: …”CPESC, CPSWQ, registered civil engineer, professional engineer, or others with a minimum”…

Recommendations

• Attachment E, page 1.3.d• Current: “The discharger shall install and operate their

ATS using personnel with either a minimum of five years construction storm water experience or are licensed contractors specifically holding a California Class A Contractors license.”

• Recommendation: “The ATS installation and operation firm shall have five years construction storm water experience or be licensed contractors specifically holding a class A contractors license and all operational personnel must meet minimum training criteria listed herein.”

Why ATS beneficial on construction sites

• Turbidity Reduction– And other contaminants associated– Dirty Water vs. Watery Dirt

• ATS is in addition to traditional BMP measures

• Allows year round construction• Aquatic Life• Going Forward

– New and Innovative Technologies

Thank You!