O&M
Feb 2022
O&M Ad Hoc Committee White Paper
Leads: Merita Trohimovich, Royce Young, Don McQuilliams
February 2022
The issues that the group has chosen to focus on are:
Issue 1: Street Sweeping –Ecology has indicated that they may consider adding ‘Street Sweeping’
as a requirement within the Operations and Maintenance Section of the NPDES Phase I & II
permits.
1. Phase I and Phase II Permittees have concerns regarding adding street sweeping as a new
O&M requirement.
2. Phase I Permittee’s see this as a potential problem as they already use street sweeping to gain
points under the Structural Stormwater Controls (SSC) portion of their permit. Sweeping is
one of the items in this program that can easily and reliably be completed within a permit
cycle. Permittees need these types of options to achieve the SSC points as capital projects can
take longer than a permit cycle to design, fund and build. If a permittee uses sweeping to
meet SSC points requirements and there is an additional sweeping requirement in the O&M
section of the permit, there could be a capacity issue for equipment & personnel to meet both
requirements.
3. SSC is not a requirement within the Phase II Permits but Phase II Permittees also have
concerns regarding adding sweeping as new O&M requirement.
4. Sweepers are expensive and not all permittees have their own sweepers.
5. Some Phase II municipalities already have a sweeping program but it is not necessarily
centered around stormwater management. Some sweeping programs are focused on leaf
removal for aesthetics and flood prevention. Sweeping programs may not be directly tied to
stormwater goals and may be run by departments outside of stormwater management
departments. These conditions may make it difficult to adapt an existing sweeping program
to meet new Permit requirements.
6. For Permittees that may have their own sweeper, dealing with waste that is generated by
sweeping is also a cost and concern if volumes increase. Some permittees currently contract
street sweeping and/or catch basin cleaning and do not have a facility to hold this type of
material prior to disposal. The process to create a storage site and obtain the necessary
operational permits is lengthy, expensive and problematic. If the NPDES SW Permit requires
expansion of sweeping programs, a long ramp up time must be included in order for
Permittees to deal with budget, equipment, and staffing needs.
Issue 1: Proposed Solution/Recommendation:
1. Ecology needs to do a comprehensive cost benefit analysis prior to adding this as a permit
requirement. That analysis could look at all Permit requirements and rank the relative
benefits of all Permit requirements.
2. If Ecology adds sweeping as a new Permit requirement, the cost benefit analysis could
include removing existing requirements to help defray costs and staffing needs.
3. The cost benefit analysis should include possible impacts to Phase I Permittee’s ability to
meet Permit mandated SSC points.
4. The cost benefit analysis and Permit language proposal should be reviewed and approved by
a technical review panel that includes all affected Permittees.
O&M
Feb 2022
5. If Ecology adds sweeping as a Permit requirement, they should provide increased capacity
grants to help Permittees purchase or contract for sweepers, pay for waste disposal and
operators.
Issue 2: Catch Basin Inspection/Maintenance – Phase Is are required to perform annual inspections of
catch basins; Phase IIs are required to inspect every two years.
(Permit Sections Phase I S5.C.10.d, Phase II S5.C.7.c.iii)
1. Phase Is feel that since the number of catch basins increases each year and many Permittees
have between 15,000 and 20,000 catch basins, annual inspection frequency is too frequent.
2. Phase IIs expressed concerns that Ecology may increase the frequency in the Phase II permit to
the annual inspection requirement and the potential increase in cost and resources would be
unmanageable for these Permittees.
3. Catch basin inspection and cleaning is problematic for many permittees. Many jurisdictions do
not own or operate a vactor truck and must contract vactor truck and crew services to complete
the required catch basin inspections and cleanings. Without the capabilities to perform vactor
truck work in-house, it is challenging for jurisdictions to perform maintenance on catch basins
within the current timeframe of 6 months.
4. There has not been support from elected officials in many jurisdictions to purchase vactor trucks
and hire additional maintenance workers necessary to perform catch basin cleaning in-house,
leaving these jurisdictions at the whim of private contractor’s schedule and pricing. Typically,
jurisdictions are required to select the lowest responsive, responsible bid to perform work,
leaving more expensive yet potentially more efficient contractors ineligible for award of the
projects. Jurisdictions do not have full control over the private vactor service’s schedule and
prioritization and must compete with other jurisdictions and projects for those services. This
capacity/scheduling issue is not currently allowed as a circumstance beyond the Permittee’s
control for not completing this permit requirement.
5. For Phase II, the arbitrary and unwritten deadline of completing catch basin inspections by
August 1st cuts into significant continuous summertime months where inspections and
maintenance are typically easiest to perform. This timing requirement is apparently a holdover
from the 2013 Phase II permit but is not mentioned in the current permit. Ecology staff (Colleen
Griffith) indicated at the Dec 16 Central NPDES Permit Coordinators Forum that it is necessary to
complete inspections every two years by Aug 1. This date is not provided in the 2019 permit. It
is very problematic for Permittees when Ecology imposes a deadline for a current permit cycle
when it is not written into the current permit. Some municipal staff may be new to permit
compliance and did not interact with the 2013 Permit, how would those staff even know that
the Aug 1 deadline exists? This “unwritten” requirement sets municipalities up for non-
compliance.
6. The guidance for the circuit approach for catch basin inspection is vague and lacking important
details for implementation making this a problematic alternative. One issue is that there is no
compliance metric for this alternative in the Permit. Permit Question Phase I Q.72 Achieved at
least 95% of required catch basin inspections? (S5.C.10.d.iii) does not align well with the
alternative of the circuit approach as the number of inspections is variable based on the circuit
approach method. The Phase II Q. 66 "Inspected catch basins owned or operated by the
Permittee every two years or used an alternative approach? (S.5.C.7.c.iii). In addition, the
guidance document contains a number of “guidance conditions” that are undefined, unclear and
vague. This makes the circuit approach method difficult to implement successfully.
7. Phase I Section S.5.C.10.d.i.(a) and Phase II S.5.C.7.c.iii(a) Choosing the less frequent CB
inspections schedule also lacks clarity. Permittees hoping to implement this approach are
O&M
Feb 2022
confused and unclear on how to implement this alternative and if Ecology “approval” is required
prior to implementation.
8. The Phase I annual report questions are not clear for alternative approaches. For each
approach, there should be an appropriate annual report question or the Phase II questions 66
and 67 should be utilized for the Phase I Permit.
9. Permittees request definition of catch basins and inlets and clarification that this permit section
applies to inlets. The Phase I section title is “Maintenance of Catch Basins Owned or Operated
by the Permittee” and does not mention inlets; however, some portions of the section mention
inlets. Please add definitions and use terms consistently throughout the permit.
10. The permit should have a compliance metric for each compliance alternative. For instance,
what is the compliance metric for the circuit approach? It is not stated in the permit. The
standard approach of inspect all and clean as needed has a compliance metric of “the presence
of an established inspection program designed to inspect all catch basins and inlets, or
implemented alternative, and achieving at least 95% of required inspections.” Given as section
S5.C.10.d.iii of the Phase I permit and section S5.C.7.c.iv. in the Phase II Permit. For the Phase II
permit, the compliance metric is a cumulative for all required inspections of all stormwater
facilities owned or operated by the Permittee.
Issue 2: Proposed Solution/Recommendation:
1. The following alternative for compliance is proposed for inclusion in the upcoming
Permits.
“Inspecting and cleaning all catch basins in an MS4 twice per permit cycle as a
compliance alternative. The suggested compliance metric for this alternative is
of: The presence of an established inspection and cleaning program designed
to inspect and clean all catch basins and inlets twice within the permit period
that achieves at least 95% of required inspections and cleanings.”
2. Ecology should work on addressing concerns about the guidance for the circuit approach.
Ecology should request information from Permittees who have tried to implement this
approach and Permittees who are interested in implementing in an informal manner.
Update the guidance document and Permit section to make this an implementable
alternative. Some issues include: incomplete requirements stated in the permit language;
no clear guidance on how the circuit approach fit within the Phase II every two year
inspection requirement; what is the definition of “highly variable” per the guidance
document and what analysis is used to determine if results are highly variable; additional
action guidance based on the results of the 25% sample inspection.
3. Ecology should provide clearer guidance on implementing the less frequent CB inspections
schedule within the Permit language. Some Permittees are unclear regarding notification to
Ecology and if Ecology approval is required prior to implementation, please clarify.
4. Permittees request definition of catch basins and inlets and clarification that this permit
section applies to inlets. The Phase I section title is “Maintenance of Catch Basins Owned or
Operated by the Permittee” and does not mention inlets, however some portions of the
section mention inlets. How does this section relate to zero sump catch basins? Are zero
sump catch basins part of this permit requirement? The group requests that Ecology
provides definitions and clarifications for these issues.
5. The permit should have a compliance metric for each compliance alternative.
a. The standard approach of inspect all and clean as needed has a compliance metric
of “the presence of an established inspection program designed to inspect all catch
basins and inlets, or implemented alternative, and achieving at least 95% of
O&M
Feb 2022
required inspections.” Given as section S5.C.10.d.iii of the Phase I permit and
section S5.C.7.c.iv. in the Phase II Permit. For the Phase II permit, the compliance
metric is a cumulative for all required inspections of all stormwater facilities owned
or operated by the Permittee. This metric also seems appropriate for the less
frequent catch basin inspection approach.
b. A compliance metric is needed for the circuit approach. The compliance metric
within the permit does not seem appropriate for the circuit approach as the number
of inspections is variable based on the results of the sample inspections. A
recommended compliance metric for this approach could be “ the presence of an
established inspection program meeting the requirements of Section Phase I and
Phase II”
c. It is recommended that the Phase II Q. 66 "Inspected catch basins owned or
operated by the Permittee every two years or used an alternative approach?
(S.5.C.7.c.iii), be used in the Phase I Permit.
6. The permit language for catch basin inspection and cleaning under Phase II S5.C.7.c.iii.
should either include the required deadline of August 1st every two years carried over from
the 2013-2018 permit if that deadline is an Ecology requirement or Ecology should not have
this August 1 deadline as a requirement. Due to issues with an Aug 1 deadline for catch
basin cleaning as outlined above, this group recommends that the compliance schedule be
adjusted to calendar years; this will help Permittees with scheduling, budgeting, and
reporting for this work. In addition, the best time to inspect and clean catch basins is in dry
weather and an Aug 1 completion date is problematic. Ecology needs to add the date back
in, however; Permittees request that the cycle be modified to a two year calendar year
cycle. This will also more clearly align with annual reporting which is based on a calendar
year reporting period.
Issue 3: 6 month maintenance follow up timeline after catch basin inspection. Phase I Permit Section
S5.C.10.a.ii and Phase II Permit Section S5.C.7.a.ii
The permit currently calls for maintenance of catch basins to be performed within 6 months
following an inspection that indicates an exceedance of the maintenance standard. The 6-month
timeframe is problematic for many jurisdictions for the following reasons:
1. The number of catch basins in each jurisdiction increases every year. This also increases the
number of catch basins that must be inspected and cleaned each year; increasing the cost and
time needed to manage this requirement including staffing needs and disposal costs.
2. Some jurisdictions do not own/operate a Vactor truck and have to use contracted services for
this work. (Woodinville, Sammamish, Poulsbo, DuPont are examples of Permittees that use
private vactor services). It is getting harder to find contractors and prices are increasing for this
service. Some jurisdictions have old vactor equipment that is prone to breakdowns and is
inefficient, which limits the number of possible working days and often making the work take
longer.
3. Additional decant facilities are needed for catch basin waste.
4. There a 95% compliance metric for catch basin inspections but no tolerance is given for
maintenance. As the Permit is written, all (100%) catch basins that require maintenance must
have that maintenance completed within 6 months. Ecology should consider allowing a small
percentage of maintenance to be completed outside of the required maintenance timeframe
and change the compliance metric for maintenance to 95%.
5. Many jurisdictions with small to medium sized MS4s do not own or operate a vactor truck and
must contract vactor truck and crew services to complete the required catch basin inspections
O&M
Feb 2022
and cleanings. Without the capabilities to perform vactor truck work in-house, it is challenging
for these jurisdictions to perform maintenance on catch basins within the current timeframe of
6 months. Some Permittees may inspect their own…