Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDWQ-2024-004976Comments/Responses Construction General Permit Renewal Public Notice Period May 28 - June 28, 2024 Comment # Person Section Stakeholder Comment DWQ Response 1 Amanda Pectol – Interstate Homes General Comments In a time when Governor Cox has asked us to all work together to decrease the costs of homes, these new rules and regulations regarding Storm Water will increase the costs of building. Covered dumpsters are not feasible. It has been observed that garbage will be placed next to a covered dumpster. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The Construction General Permit is a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act and Utah Water Quality Act for construction sites which meet the applicability criteria. 2 Amanda Pectol – Interstate Homes General Comments (Part 8.4) As builders, most of the time we are scrambling to finish landscaping for COO. Closing is quite soon afterwards. The home owner takes possession of the home over and most often will have backyard landscaping soon scheduled. These other contractors do not follow our SWPPP procedures and therefore create infractions. If the coverage is required by the builder for 30 days, this is another cost added to the build. I would like to see this coverage period remain at 14 days. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Coverage is not required by the permittee for 30 days after completion of the project. As soon as one of the conditions in Part 8.2 are met, the permittee has 30 days to submit the NOT. One of the conditions in Part 8.2 is, “Completed homes occupied by home owners where at least temporary sediment and erosion controls are in place may terminate without final stabilization. If a home owner buys a newly completed house, the permittee can terminate the Permit while transferring the property to the home owner. The home owner should not be involved in the Permit process. If a home owner builds his/her house, they must terminate when approved for occupancy when temporary storm water controls are in place on the site.” 3 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 2.1.4 - Ensure that all storm water controls are maintained This section is now more confusing, not less. Previously, 2.1.4.c stated that any repairs should be done ‘immediately’, which was defined as by the end of the next business day, if practical. The new wording says anything other than significant repairs or the need to install a new or replacement control must be completed by the end of the next business day. Does this include non-structural controls such as street sweeping, emptying dumpsters, emptying washouts, etc.? No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The CGP requires routine maintenance (i.e. minor repairs or other upkeep performed to ensure the site’s storm water controls remain in effective operating condition) be initiated immediately and completed by the close of the next business day. The requirement in 2.4.1.b.refers to those maintenance issues that can be addressed quickly and do not require documentation each time they are completed (i.e. street sweeping, removing built up sediment on a control, emptying dumpsters, etc.) When a control requires significant repair; a new or replacement control is needed; or it is necessary to repeatedly (three (3) or more times) conduct the same routine maintenance fix to the same control at the same location; this constitutes a corrective action. A corrective action requires the operator to complete the maintenance or repair by the close of the next business day (for problems not requiring a new control or significant repair) or within seven (7) calendar days from the time of discovery. The main difference is that corrective actions must be recorded in the corrective action log. 4 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 2.1.4 - Ensure that all storm water controls are maintained The section now also requires that routine maintenance that must occur more than 3 times must have documentation in the inspection report explaining why we should still address the specific reoccurrence of this same problem. Again, for many controls, maintenance will be required more than 3 times. Street sweeping, dumpsters, and many other controls will need continuous maintenance and should not require justification for continuing to use them. Additionally, for projects laster longer than several months, silt fence or other perimeter controls, inlet protections, and other controls will certainly need routine maintenance more than 3 times. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The requirement in 2.1.4.c. is meant to be used to address controls that continually require the same maintenance for the same cause (i.e. silt fence that is constantly being undercut due to insufficient upstream velocity controls). In the event there is a control that needs routine maintenance more than 3 times, for the reasons you discussed (i.e. cleaning silt fence over many months, cleaning inlet protection, etc.) there is a condition in the permit (Part 2.1.4.c(2)) that allows the inspector to document in the inspection report why it should still considered routine maintenance (i.e. cleaning sediment off inlet protection). 5 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 2.2.3 - Install Sediment Controls Very useful clarification. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. 6 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 2.2.4.d - Minimize sediment track-out This is an excellent addition for single lot residential sites where it is infeasible to create an effective trackout pad. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. 7 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 2.2.14 The new deadlines are much more achievable. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. 8 Hank Tolman – Accena Group and Burke Staker - Woodside Homes Section 4.2.2.a.(2) - Frequency of Inspections For extended storm events, the new permit language is impossible to follow without conducting an inspection every day that has more than 0.5 inches of rain as there is no way to know when the last day that produces 0.5 inches of rain will be until it happens. For example, during a 4 day storm event, the first day produces 0.5 inches of rain so an inspection is conducted within 24-hours. On the second day, another 0.5 inches of rain is produced, but the storm is forecasted to last for 4 days. How do you know if days 3 or 4 will produce 0.5 inches of rain or more? Since you don’t know, you have to conduct another inspection within 24 hours of day 2. If day 3 then produces 0.5 inches of rain, you didn't have to do the inspection after day 2, but again, there is no way to know if day 4 will reach 0.5 inches. If you wait to find out, it will be too late to do the inspection for day 3 and you will be out of compliance. Since there is no way to know how much it will rain until it has rained, the previous permit provides a better method for ensuring that an inspection is conducted after the first 0.5 inches and again at the end of the storm event, even if the last days of the storm event don’t reach 0.5 inches. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. If the inspector chooses to conduct inspections once every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the occurrence of a storm event that produces 0.50 inches or more of rain within a 24-hour period instead of at least once every seven (7) calendar days, then the permit states “you must conduct an inspection within 24 hours of the first day of the storm and within 24 hours after the last day of the storm that produces 0.5 inches or more of rain.” The inspection is made “within 24 hours” which gives the inspector the time to determine if 0.5 inches of rainfall occurred. The inspector does not need to predict the upcoming rain totals for days that have not occurred. For example, If a storm event starts on Monday at 10:00 AM, I would check my rain gauge on Tuesday at 10:00 AM and see if there was 0.5 inches or more during that 24 hour period. If there is, I have 24 hours to conduct the inspection for the storm that started on Monday. If the storm event continues, I would check the rain gauge on Wednesday morning at 10:00 AM. If there is more than 0.5 inches of rain, I would not need to conduct an inspection because Tuesday produced over 0.5 inches of rain. If there was under 0.5 inches of rain, the storm event is considered over and I would conduct another inspection within 24 hours. I would continue this for each day of the storm event. 9 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 4.7.1.d - Inspection Report Relates to the issue of recording in each inspection report why it is necessary to continue using functioning controls that may need more than 3 instances of maintenance throughout the life of the project. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. See comment response 4. 10 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 5.1 Same issue as above. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. See comment response 4. 11 Hank Tolman – Accena Group Section 8.2 and 8.6 - Conditions for Termination of Permit Coverage Section 8.2 states that compliance with the permit is required until termination is effective consistent with part 8.6. 8.6 states that coverage terminates at midnight of the calendar day that you submit a complete NOT to the DWQ. There is no mention of a regulatory oversight requirement to verify that all of the Section 8 conditions have been met to submit the NOT. It appears that there is no requirement to wait for the MS4 to conduct a ‘Final Inspection’ or to approve the NOT in the CDX prior to the operator removing the BMPs and terminating coverage as long as the section 8 requirements have been met. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. You are correct that there is no requirement to wait for the MS4 to conduct a ‘Final Inspection’ or to approve the NOT in the CDX prior to the operator removing the BMPs and terminating coverage as long as the section 8 requirements have been met, as was the case in the previous permit. The MS4 or DWQ will conduct an inspection to verify that the termination criteria have been met, as certified on the termination form when submitted. Sometimes it can take time for a MS4/DWQ to conduct a NOT inspection, so the permit allows operators to submit a NOT without requiring continued inspections or other permit requirements while waiting for the regulatory agency to conduct a final termination inspection. As stated in Part 9.2, “Any Permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for Permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a Permit renewal application.” If the regulatory agency’s final termination inspection indicates that the permit termination conditions have not been met, DWQ may reissue the permit. 12 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 2.2.3 (c)(2) - Install sediment controls This section would require all sites to perform inspections after each storm event. There needs to be language stating after the storm event and during the next scheduled inspection. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. This section of the permit describes the maintenance needed for stormwater controls and does cover inspection criteria. If circumventing or undercutting of a perimeter control is occurring or has occurred, the control has become ineffective and needs to be repaired. If inspection frequency is weekly and the control has not been repaired before the next storm event, there is potential for the discharge of pollutants. perimeter Once controls are installed, the operator is responsible for ensuring they are maintained in effective operating condition (see Permit Part 2.1.4). 13 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 2.3.4.b(2) - For washing applicators and containers This section requires the removal of hardened concrete consistent with 2.3.3 and refers to foot note 31. Section 2.3.3 does not have language addressing hardened concrete. Concrete is not suitable to be put into a dumpster or receptacle. It must be moved with heavy equipment. Foot note 31 provides an exception for all concrete other than hardened concrete removed from a wash out. This is an unreasonable requirement. Concrete that has cured in a wash out has the exact same properties as concrete that has cured within the confines of a form. Hardened concrete from a clean out cannot blow into water ways nor can it leach into the ground water. All of 2.3.4(2) needs to be remove. Hardened concrete does not impact water quality. Placing hardened concrete into receptacles for removal to a land fill removes the opportunity for recycling. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Section 2.3.4(2) requires operators to remove and dispose of hardened concrete waste consistent with their handling of construction wastes in Part 2.3.3. Section 2.3.3(e) only contains storage and handling requirements for construction wastes; the method of disposal is left up to the operator’s discretion. Therefore, an operator is required to handle and store hardened concrete waste in accordance with 2.3.3(e), but may choose an appropriate method to dispose of it, which may include recycling. Likewise, section 2.3.3(e) requires operators to adequately contain construction wastes until their disposal. Although dumpsters and trash receptacles are offered as examples of possible waste containers, an operator is not required to use those options if they are not suitable to contain a specific type of waste. This Permit Part does not refer to how to dispose of hardened concrete, but states that hardened concrete waste should be disposed of consistent with your handling of other construction waste.” Section 2.3.3 does not include language for disposing of hardened concrete. The language only says “consistent with” Section 2.3.3. Finally, footnote 31 is not an exemption, but is used to define what is meant by “hardened concrete waste.” Hardened concrete that will be used during a later construction phase, recycled, or disposed of in the future is not “hardened concrete waste.” 14 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association Section 4 This section needs to include language alerting the permit holders that in Jan. of 2025 a law will go into effect requiring MS4’s to conduct on site inspections using an electronic tool. In order for MS4’s to complete these inspections, the operator will need to provide monthly time dated geo located photographs of the permitted site. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The law that goes into effect January 1, 2025 (HB507) requires MS4s to conduct electronic inspections. The law does not require CGP operators to conduct their self-inspections electronically or provide time-dated and geolocated photographs. MS4 requirements are established in the four MS4 permits, which will be modified prior to January 1, 2025 to include the requirement for electronic inspections. Once the MS4 permits have been modified, the CGP will be modified to reference the MS4 permits. 15 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 5.4.4 - CORRECTIVE ACTION LOG Requires SWPPP corrective action log to be on site. Jan of 2025 a new law will take effect requiring all onsite inspections to be completed with an electronic tool. In order for that tool to function, the operator will need to have monthly reports posted to a site accessible by the MS4 and the operator. This site will have an ongoing record of corrections. There is no need to place an additional burden on operators to have the log on site. A corrective action log is historical information that shows how the project evolved to the current plan. The actual plan is what is necessary for onsite compliance. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Permit Part 5.4.4. states “You must keep a copy of the corrective action log with the SWPPP… and make them available in paper or electronic format.” If you elect for electronic format, paper logs are not required as long as the electronic format is accessible. 16 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 5.4.5 - CORRECTIVE ACTION LOG This section requires the operator to retain corrective action records for 3 years. Jan of 2025 all on site inspections will be completed using an electronic tool. These inspections will generate an electronic database. There is no need for the operator to maintain an additional set of records. This is an unreasonable request that drives up cost with no measurable outcome. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The law that goes into effect January 1, 2025 (HB507) requires MS4s to conduct electronic inspections. The law does not require CGP operators to conduct their self-inspections electronically. Only 1 set of records are required. CGP operators must keep records (paper or electronic) for a minimum of 3 years. 17 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 7.2.1 - SWPPP WRITER/REVIEWER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT This section provides a list of approved acceptable qualifications. It needs additional language stating; this is not an exhaustive list and any other training providing knowledge in the principles and practices considered in development of a SWPPP is acceptable. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Permit Part 7.2.1 states “A “qualified” SWPPP writer is knowledgeable in the principles and practices considered in thedevelopment of a SWPPP.” The section then lists some acceptable qualifications. This list is not exhaustive. 18 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 7.4.1 - ON-SITE AVAILABILITY OF YOUR SWPPP This section states you must keep a current copy of your SWPPP on the site or at an easily accessible location so that you can make it available at the time of an onsite inspection…. Starting Jan 2025 those on-site inspections are required to be done using an electronic inspection tool. So, this section needs to be modified to require the SWPPP be available online, otherwise the MS4 inspector will not have access to the SWPPP from there office to perform there on site inspection. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Permit Part 7.4.1. states “You must keep a current copy of your SWPPP at the site or at an easily accessible location…You can store the SWPPP electronically as long as personnel on-site can access it and you can make it immediately accessible to the inspector during an inspection…” The law that goes into effect January 1, 2025 (HB507) requires MS4s to conduct electronic inspections. The law does not require CGP operators to conduct their self-inspections electronically. MS4 requirements are covered by the four MS4 permits which will be modified prior to January 1, 2025 to include the electronic inspection requirement. Once the MS4 permits have been modified, the CGP will be modified to reference the MS4 permits. 19 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 9.18 - RECORDS RETENTION This section requires the operator to retain records for 3 years. This is an unreasonable request adding cost and unnecessary burden to operators. One year gives a complete weather cycle and adequate time for DWQ to monitor a site. The final sentence of the first paragraph, giving the director authority to extend this time, needs to be removed or parameters set that requires an engineering and science based fact pattern to be provided in written, demonstrating the need to extend the record keeping requirement. As written, the director can increase record keeping requirements based on a dislike of an operator. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The requirement to retain records for a period of at least three (3) years is taken from Utah Admin. Code R-317-8-4. This Section of the code requires “All conditions applicable shall be incorporated into the permits either expressly or by reference.” One of those required sections states that: “The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports [SWPPPs, written authorizations to discharge, inspections, etc.] required by the permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for the permit for a period of at least three (3) years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time.” DWQ believes a three (3) year retention time to be reasonable and inexpensive, especially since the majority of SWPPPs and inspections are stored electronically. The language regarding extending the period by request of the Director is included here in order to be in compliance with Utah Admin. Code R-317-8-4 which requires this language to be included. 20 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 10.1 - DEFINITIONS Construction waste needs to be modified to eliminate masonry. Masonry waste is not commonly put into a dumpster or bin. Masonry products are heavy and commonly banned from going into dumpsters. It is removed from the site with heavy equipment. Treating it the same as other waste eliminates the ability to recycle. Waste masonry products do not blow and present no threat of leaching into ground water. This requirement is an unnecessary cost with no benefit to water quality. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Masonry products waste can be anything from bricks to dust; rebar to steel grinding shavings. The definition provides examples of common construction waste ("such as….masonry products") and does not describe how to dispose of these wastes. 21 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 10.1 - DEFINITIONS Impervious surface – Packed gravel or soil need to be removed from this definition or provide an acceptable perk rate. The language “packed gravel or soil” is subjective and left to the judgment of untrained workers and inspectors rather than relying on a definable standard. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The permit uses the EPA’s Definition of impervious surface, which states: “for the purpose of this permit, any land surface with a low or no capacity for soil infiltration including, but not limited to, pavement, sidewalks, parking areas and driveways, packed gravel or soil, or rooftops.” 22 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association General comments There is a need to add definitions supporting a new section that is necessary to comply with requirements outlined in HB 507. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The requirements for construction oversight inspections per HB507 that go into effect on January 1, 2025 are a requirement of the MS4 permits, not the CGP. The four MS4 permits will be modified prior to January 1, 2025 to include HB507 requirements. Once the MS4 permits have been modified, the CGP will be modified to reference the MS4 permits. 23 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association General comments A section is needed to inform operators of their responsibility to comply with oversite inspections using an electronic tool. Operators will need to know what their obligations are and how they need to interface with the MS4. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Oversight inspections are a requirement of the MS4 permits, not the CGP. The four MS4 permits will be modified prior to January 1, 2025 to include HB507 requirements. Once the MS4 permits have been modified, the CGP will be modified to reference the MS4 permits. 24 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 10.1 - DEFINITIONS “Electronic inspection tool” needs to be defined. This is a new concept that operators will not be familiar with so will not understand what it is or how to properly use it. Similarly to how the permit requires the use of EPA’s ereporting tool NeT, the operator needs to be informed there is an electronic requirement for oversight inspections. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. “Electronic inspection tool” is not used in the CGP and therefore is not defined in this permit. “Electronic inspection tool” is a requirement of MS4s and will be included in the MS4 permits prior to January 1, 2025. 25 Ross Ford - Home Builders Association 10.1 - DEFINITIONS Oversite inspection needs to be defined. Otherwise, the operator will not know the difference between their inspection process and an inspection from the MS4. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Oversight inspections are a MS4 requirement. This term is not used in the CGP and therefore is not defined. 26 Gregory Ewanitz - - LENNAR Part 2.1.4.c Part 2.1.4.c of the draft CGP states: If you must repeatedly (i.e., three (3) or more times) make the same routine maintenance fixes to the same control at the same location, even if you can complete the repair by the close of the next business day, you must either: (1) Complete work to fix any subsequent repeat occurrences of this same problem under the corrective action procedures in Part 5, including keeping any records of the condition and how you corrected it under Part 5.4; or (2) Document in your inspection report under Part 4.7.1 why you still consider the specific reoccurrence of this same problem as a routine maintenance fix under this Part. Repairs to the same stormwater control at the same location may be needed multiple times throughout the life of a construction project, and very likely is not related to the effectiveness of the stormwater control. For example, in residential construction to build an individual home there may be up to 40 different subcontractor firms that need to access the lot during construction of the home. These subcontractor firms will be accessing the lot to deliver construction building materials, install the construction building materials, or install and maintain the on-lot stormwater controls. Each subcontractor firm can routinely impact and damage the same stormwater control (e.g., back of curb silt fence) multiple times until construction activities are completed, the lot has achieved permanent stabilization, and the stormwater control is removed. Therefore, this proposed requirement is onerous and burdensome to the regulated community and provides no apparent benefit to water quality or the environment. Thus, we request that the last paragraph of Part 2.1.4.c be deleted in its entirety: If you must repeatedly (i.e., three (3) or more times) make the same routine maintenance fixes to the same control at the same location, even if you can complete the repair by the close of the next business day, you must either: (1) Complete work to fix any subsequent repeat occurrences of this same problem under the corrective action procedures in Part 5, including keeping any records of the condition and how you corrected it under Part 5.4; or (2) Document in your inspection report under Part 4.7.1 why you still consider the specific reoccurrence of this same problem as a routine maintenance fix under this Part. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The primary goal of Part 2.1.4.c is to distinguish between routine maintenance and persistent issues that might indicate a fundamental problem with the control measure’s effectiveness. If a control measure is repeatedly impacted (e.g., by subcontractors) but remains effective, you can document this in your inspection report under Part 4.7.1. This allows for ongoing maintenance without the need for additional corrective actions if the effectiveness of the control is not compromised. DWQ acknowledges that multiple subcontractors accessing a site can impact stormwater controls. Proper documentation allows for differentiation between frequent but necessary maintenance and indications of control failure. Ensuring that controls are effective even with repeated maintenance ultimately benefits water quality by preventing sediment and pollutants from leaving the site. 27 Gregory Ewanitz - - LENNAR Part 4.8 Part 4.8 of the draft CGP states: You must allow an authorized representative of DWQ, the MS4 of jurisdiction, or the EPA to conduct the following activities at reasonable times. In order for the regulated community to be aware that authorized representatives have arrived at the project site, we request that Part 4.8 of the draft CGP be modified as follows: You must allow an authorized representative of DWQ, the MS4 of jurisdiction, or the EPA upon presentation of credentials, to conduct the following activities at reasonable times. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The requirement to present credentials to access a site is addressed in permit Part 9.20.1, which states: “The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative, upon presentation of credentialsand other documents as may be required by law,....” 28 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes 1.1.4.a This is difficult because it takes too long for the city to close out the previous NOT which means if I buy land and pull an NOI there are now at least 2 or 3 active Permits unless the cities get faster at approving an NOT. I have a couple of our projects that the NOT was just approved in West Jordan where the projects have had the NOT filed over 2 years ago. We just received those closeouts end of May 2024. What is the purpose of this rule and why does state care? Are they trying to make sure someone is accountable? In many scenarios we are overlapping with a developer on a new project they are developing. We are more often than not two different owners. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. NOTs can be submitted any time. See Permit Part 8. The project is considered terminated upon submission of the NOT by the permittee. It is the permittee's responsibility to ensure that the conditions for termination in Permit Part 8.2 are met before submitting the NOT. A final termination inspection by the regulatory authority (MS4 or DWQ) will be conducted to ensure termination conditions are met. This inspection does not delay the termination. Per Permit Part 8.6, “Your authorization to discharge under this Permit terminates at midnight of the calendar day that you submita complete NOT to DWQ.” 29 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 1.1.4 B - Discharges from the Project Cannot Discharges from a project CAN; A project that discharges into large retention basin can allow for less strict provisions. Communities where storm drain systems collect water into large retention basins within the site can allow for dirt to enter the basin. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The provisions in the permit remain in effect regardless of the controls selected and do not become less strict. Stormwater retention basins that have been designed for use as a sediment control measure and will not allow for the discharge of sediment can still discharge sediment. The operator must ensure the capacity of the basin is maintained in order to remain in effective operating condition. Stormwater retention basins that are part of a stormwater management system may not be designed to allow for sediment to enter, which could limit the storage capacity it was designed for. A stormwater retention pond that will be used for the project for sediment control must be identified in the SWPPP and designed to meet the conditions in the CGP (see part 2.2.12). 30 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 1.3.2 - Prohibited Discharges “Other construction materials” needs to go away. Cities understand this as any material. We have been called out for wet lumber, trusses, full PVC pipe, dried concrete slabs, etc. The cities read this as any materials that get wet. Can we add what is not considered a violation? Extra Concrete from the chute can be poured out on the ground. Broken/ and unbroken Concrete slabs can be on the lot Lumber is not a violation Etc No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. This part in the permit refers to the prohibited discharge of wastewater from construction materials. Lumber, trusses, pvc, and dried concrete do not generate wastewater. This part in the permit is based on the Federal C&D rule in 40 CFR 450.21(e). 31 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 1.4 - Notice of Intent (NOI) I feel like this section needs to say that the NOI does not need to in place until right before construction begins along with all the BMPs. Or we need to specify somewhere in the permit that cities cannot say that an NOI is necessary to review building plans. It is not state law to have NOI as part of the permit set but cities use it to slow builders down. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Agreed. A NOI is required prior to earth-disturbing activities at the site. The MS4 permits (Small MS4 Permit Part 4.2.4.1.2) require MS4 to “require construction operators to obtain coverage under the current UPDES Storm Water General Permits for Construction Activities for the duration ofthe project.” Small MS4 PErmit : https://lf-public.deq.utah.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=56352&repo=Public&searchid=71f10fd4-adbd-4378-9b2b-1f310abdf1cb 32 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 1.4.3 b Meant to be in Reference to Part 1.4.5.b Why does this have to be an annual fee? I don’t mind a renewal, but why do we have to keep paying a fee. This should just say we renew the permit annually and the fee should be a one-time event. If the permit expires then there should be an additional fee No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Permits are obtained for one year. If the permit expires it is because it has been over one year since the permit was obtained. The annual fee is only required if the project extends beyond the one year from NOI initiation. 33 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 1.4.3 d Meant to be in Reference to Part 1.4.5.d I think this is a good idea for keeping one party accountable, but the reality is that developers and other builders are overlapping even if that is just in using the same roads. I don’t know the solution but it puts blame for everyone on one entity. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. This requirement refers to those who obtain an alternate general permit (not another CGP) or an individual wastewater permit. All operators who meet the eligibility conditions are required to obtain CGP coverage. 34 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 4.2.1 - Frequency of Inspections This section should have more of a range than a concrete number. I feel like is should say something more along the lines of 5-10 calendar days or 7-10 business days. We try to do it every Thursday, but things happen. People go on vacation, get sick, etc. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The requirement already states “at least” which gives flexibility to the operator to plan around scheduling conflicts. It is not required to be on the same day each week, just at least once every seven calendar days. 35 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 4.4.1 - Stabilized Areas I have never understood why cities and DWQ are so anxious for a builder or developer to remove the previous owners NOI and their BMPs. Seems like the previous owner should be required to or allowed to leave BMPs in place and the new Permittee can keep or remove their BMPs if they don’t want to use them No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The NOI must reflect the operator currently working on the site. Additionally, many BMPs are not biodegradable. Contractors are not required to remove BMPs if they will be used by another operator in the same area, but these controls must be identified in the SWPPP and maintained by the new operator. Submitting the NOT certifies the project has been completed and inspections will no longer be conducted, the SWPPP will no longer be updated, and there is no more oversight needed at that location. 36 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 4.4.3 - Frozen Conditions Builders get beat up a lot during the freeze thaw seasons. Can a buffer time frame be added due to the unpredictability of this season? Can we say something like a builder has 48- 72 hours to clean during this season? No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. There is flexibility for operators built into the permit to allow inspections to be suspended for inactive projects or reduced to monthly for active projects. If weather warms up, inspections can be resumed at a weekly or bi-weekly frequency. 37 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes Part 7.2 - SWPPP Writer/Reviewer Certification Requirement This section and requirement needs to go away. I think this should only be required when it is a more difficult site that requires it. This wasn’t a requirement in the past and shouldn’t be now. If it is going to stay, the license and renewal should be free and classes provided for free. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. This section was contained in the previous version of the permit and is not a new requirement. This section only requires these certifications for more complex projects. As stated in the permit, “projects disturbing greater than 5 acres, including small construction projects (1 to 5 acres) having a perennial surface water within 50 feet of the project, or having a steep slope (70% or 35 degrees or more) with an elevation change from the slope of 10 feet or more (at any point during the time of construction – not including stock piles).” 38 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments Something needs to be said about preventing the size of government. Many cities are hiring multiple MS4 inspectors and are using them for compliance and SWPPP. Using SWPPP to justify being able to hire more. The cities then increase the amount of the building permits. This increases the price of the home. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. SWPPP review and approval, construction site inspection, and construction site enforcement are requirements of the MS4 permits and the Federal Clean Water Act. 39 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments Cities also use this as an opportunity to go outside of the realm of SWPPP to shut a community down. If you call out the MS4 for not being able to justify something as SWPPP related they will then turn it into a city ordinance that is being infringed upon. These departments need to be kept separate. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Escalation of enforcement is a requirement of the MS4 permits, not the CGP. 40 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments We need to spell out to the cities that a sidewalk that is separated from the street by a park strip are not the impervious surfaces being described throughout the permit. Cities are calling us out for dirt on a sidewalk. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Sidewalks are typically an impervious surface unless they are constructed of pervious material. The sidewalk may require sediment removal or it may not depending on the designated limits of the “site”in the SWPPP. The “site” must have perimeter controls to prevent off site discharge of sediment as per Permit Part 2.2.3 and the SWPPP. If the “site” includes the sidewalk and park strip, then the perimeter control should be placed in the park strip at the curb. If the “site” boundary is where the lot line meets the sidewalk, then perimeter controls should be placed on the lot. 41 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments Cities need to allow a builder to work inside of their right of way. Many inspectors, in three different cities, have told us we have to do a cut back curb and a cut back sidewalk because they claim we are not allowed to work in their right of way. We have fought this but it has taken getting DWQ involved to discuss it with the inspectors. If the cities don’t want us to do a cut back curb in their right of way they should have to do it along with installing all of their Storm Drain protection and anything else that is in their right of way. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The CGP does not include design standards or discuss right-of-ways as part of the permit. These issues are part of local ordinances and codes and are not part of the CGP. Per Permit Part 2.2.3, Sediment controls (such as cut back curb) are required “along any perimeter areas of the site that are downslope from any exposedsoil or other disturbed areas.” 42 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments We need to add a section that Cities cannot use SWPPP as a reason to prevent Certificate of Occupancy. In a community we had a concrete washout staged on a large lot. We were using the washout for 4 houses that were all coming to completion. The future buyers needed to close and were OK with us continuing to use the property until we were done. The city said it was a SWPPP violation and would not give us Certificate of Occupancy unless we removed it. We eventually won the battle but it almost took a month to do so. SWPPP items that need to be removed are handled through the NOT not Certificate of Occupancy. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Filing of a NOT is required for every permit within 30 days of completion per Permit Part 8. There is no CGP requirement for granting of Certificate of Occupancy based on NOT approval. 42 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments We also need to prevent cities from saying that an NOT needs to be filed for every lot. Riverton forces us to file an NOT on each lot before they will give us Certificate of Occupancy. Eagle Mountain City would not give us our last Certificate of Occupancy on our last lot in the community unless we filed the NOT for the entire community. NOT and CofO should not affect each other and should not be a requirement that a city can use against us. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Filing of a NOT is required for every permit within 30 days of completion per Permit Part 8. 44 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments Too many cities think that builders need to put track out along the frontage of every lot. This is financially irresponsible and it leaves a lot of extra cobble in everyone’s front yard. Builders should be able to clean up by the end of the day if gravel or other things need to be dropped off on a lot. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Single lot residential projects less than one acre are typically covered under the Common Plan Permit (https://documents.deq.utah.gov/water-quality/permits/updes/DWQ-2021-001314.pdf) which states in Permit Part 2.2.4.d: “If traffic onto and off the site is not frequent, a site operator may impose a blanket prohibition of vehicle traffic onto the site, allowing for the occasions to deliver and unload, but afterwards providing sweeping and/or cleaning of tracked out dirt.” This statement has been added to the CGP (Permit Part 2.2.4.d) as an option for single lot residential sites disturbing less than one acre. 45 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments We need to address escalation clause. Cities use this SWPPP as ammunition to shut down jobsites without an escalation. Many inspectors are eager and quick to just shut down a site without following the allowable time frames for corrections. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Escalation of enforcement is a component of the MS4 permits, not the CGP. The escalation of enforcement requirements stipulated in HB 507 will be added to the MS4 permits prior to January 1, 2025 when they take effect. 46 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments Is there something that states how fast an NOI must be pulled if you purchase a new project? We have had cities badgering us to hurry and pull the NOI when we have just purchased something and we haven’t even started construction. I feel like NOI for the purchase of a new project does not need to be in place until construction activity begins. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The permit states, “Your coverage will begin the date you receive written authorization to discharge from the Director and will remain in effect for one year. Permit coverage must be renewed annually until construction activities are completed and final stabilization is achieved.” Permit coverage is required from the commencement of earth-disturbing activities (defined in the permit as “the initial disturbance of soils associated with clearing, grading, or excavating activities or other construction-related activities”) until final stabilization. The comment about the timeline for pulling the permit within an MS4 and meeting MS4 deadlines does not apply to this permit and should be addressed in the renewal of the MS4 Permit. 47 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments We need to add that a city cannot alter the Permittee’s SWPPP plan and force them to do things their way. This includes using BMPs that the city says is required in their city. They can work out using something city specific but the city should have to pay for and be liable for its function. If not we need to state that cities cannot require specifics in regards to BMPs used or types used. This is especially ridiculous when they let a developer use fabric for their storm drain bag and then make the builder buy the most expensive type. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. SWPPP review is a requirement of the MS4 permit, not the CGP. This comment does not apply to the CGP and should be addressed in the renewal of the MS4 Permit. 48 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments What do we need to do so that our permit is less strict than the National GCP? No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The Utah CGP is evaluated each time there is a renewal of the Federal CGP to determine if the changes made by the EPA are applicable to the State of Utah. These changes are then added or removed from the Utah CGP and the public is given the opportunity to comment on the changes during the public comment period. There are many parts in the permit where DWQ has chosen to not include components of the Federal CGP because it is not applicable or where requirements that are included are not as strict as the Federal CGP. 49 Jeremy Moser and Todd Mower - Alpine Homes General Comments Concrete suppliers. Trucks should be able to wash down their truck to keep them clean for safety. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. The permit allows vehicle washing to occur, however, the permit states, “For equipment and vehicle washing, provide an effective means of minimizing the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing, wheel wash water, and other types of wash waters.” The wording in Part 1.3.1 of the permit says, “Wastewater from washing tools and vehicles after pouring, prepping, or finishing concrete” is a prohibited discharge. Concrete wastewater must be handled in accordance with Part 2.3.4 of the permit. 50 Melinda Gibson - City of St. George General Comment Maybe reference login.gov if it is truly changing on August 2. No changes to the permit were made as a result of this comment. Beginning on August 5, 2024, the CDX authentication process will support Multifactor Authentication (MFA) through the US Government's Login.gov solution. The process for obtaining a NOI or NOT will not change, but will require users to use two-step authentication. 51 Melinda Gibson - City of St. George Table of Contents Add A.3.1 to the Table of Contents A.3.1 has been added to the Table of Contents. 52 Melinda Gibson - City of St. George Table of Contents Add A.3.2 to the Table of Contents A.3.2 has been added to the Table of Contents.