Pollution and Waste Treatment Solutions for Environmental Professionals
A guide to stormwater maintenance, inspection, and regulatory compliance
By Matthew Van Patten, PE, CHMM, Michael E. Yost November 1, 2006
When we think of pollution, most of us conjure up images of smokestacks or drums of hazardous waste. But one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the United States today is stormwater runoff, and it merits the full attention of industrial and commercial facilities alike. In several recent landmark cases, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a number of stormwater settlements, imposing multi-million-dollar penalties on the City of Dallas, commercial property owners, and construction firms for stormwater management violations at sites across the country. Strategies for avoiding violation notices and achieving compliance are mainly based on preventive maintenance programs that properly address stormwater problems.
EPA regulates stormwater primarily through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES permit program is based on the statutory requirements contained in the Clean Water Act. As with many EPA programs, states can be delegated authority to develop and implement the program and conduct regulatory oversight.
The EPA Stormwater Program was implemented in two phases. Phase I addresses sources of stormwater runoff that have the greatest potential to negatively impact water quality, including 11 categories of industrial sources, medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) located in incorporated places or counties with populations of 100,000, and construction activity that disturbs five or more acres of land. The Phase II Final Rule, published on Dec. 8, 1999, requires NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges from small MS4s and construction activity disturbing between one and five acres of land (i.e., small construction activities). The implementation of Phase II required establishment of stormwater programs in many municipalities that had poor or nonexistent prior inspection programs.
As more municipalities formalize their stormwater programs, the shift in enforcement is moving from sediment and erosion control to stormwater management. As municipalities establish their stormwater management inspection and maintenance programs, the level of enforcement has been increasing dramatically. The shift in enforcement is also moving from industrial facilities to commercial and even residential properties. Many homeowners associations (HOA) across the country are responsible for maintenance of their stormwater systems and may not even know it.
Belowground BMPs are more common in new developments where land prices are at a premium and in infill projects where the necessary surface area is unavailable. Belowground BMPs commonly include engineered structures designed to improve water quality, such as oil/grit separators, catch basins, vortex type units, cartridge units, detention structures, sand filters, infiltration structures, and others.
Table 1 Preventive BMP Maintenance Schedule for Routine Tasks |
||
BMP Structure Type |
Routine Task |
Frequency |
Wet Pond/Dry Ponds/Infiltration Trenches |
Remove Trash/Debris for BMP and contributing area |
Quarterly |
| |
Mow to 6?-8? grass height |
Quarterly |
Remove wood vegetation from dam and banks |
Spring/Fall |
|
Stabilize/Revegetate side areas |
As needed |
|
Repair embankment and side slopes |
As needed |
|
Fill animal burrows |
ASAP |
|
Wet Pond |
Lubricate mechanical components |
Annually |
Underground Sand Filter |
Remove Trash/Debris from contributing area |
Quarterly |
| |
Ensure contributing areas are not sources of vehicle fluids |
Quarterly |
Service Fencing and locks |
Annually |
|
Repair of leaks from sedimentation chamber or deterioration of structural components |
Annually or as needed |
|
Stabilize/Revegetate contributing areas |
As needed |
|
The key to a successful compliance strategy is a comprehensive preventive maintenance (PM) program. A PM program will ensure that the structures continue to operate as designed, maintenance covenants are followed, and overall property aesthetics are maintained. Elements of a PM program include both routine and non-routine tasks. Regular inspection should be performed in conjunction with routine maintenance tasks. Inspections will focus on identifying erosion, embankment failures, and overall operation of the BMP. Tables 1 and 2 identify routine and non-routine tasks that should be performed on typical BMPs. However, BMPs that have not been following a PM program for more that five years will likely require some level of rehabilitation. This often involves sediment and vegetation removal, repair of embankment and side slopes, and repair of control structures. Since this work can be costly, it is beneficial to start the PM program as soon as the BMPs are constructed.
Table 2 BMP Preventive Maintenance Schedule for Typical Non-Routine Tasks |
||
BMP Structure Type |
Task |
Frequency |
Wet Pond |
Remove accumulated sediment/pollutants |
5-15 years |
| |
Replace mechanical components |
20 yrs |
Reconstruct spillways and embankments |
20-50 years |
|
Control algae |
When Identified |
|
Remove invasive wetland vegetation |
When Identified |
|
Repair fencing |
When Identified |
|
Dry Pond/Infiltration Trenches |
Remove accumulated sediment/pollutants |
2-10 years |
| |
Dethatch grass to remove sediment buildups |
2 years |
Aerate compacted area to promote infiltration |
2-3 years |
|
Replace components, reconstruct embankments |
20-50 years |
|
Infiltration Trenches |
Remove/replace top 6? of gravel |
2 years |
Remove accumulated sediment from main cells |
20 years |
|
Underground Sand Filter |
Removed accumulated sediments from chambers |
1-2 years |
| |
Remove and replace top few inches of sand |
1-2 years |
Replace filter media, replace underdrains |
20 years |
|
Replace concrete shell |
20-50 years |
|
Although stormwater management has not typically been on the top of the priority list for many commercial and industrial facilities, trends indicate that enforcement is increasing. While some large facilities may have in-house staff responsible for these activities, most owners rely on outsourcing to specialized firms to perform inspections, identify or correct problems, and institute the proper preventive maintenance programs.
About the author
Matthew Van Patten, PE, CHMM
Matthew Van Patten, PE, CHMM, is knowledgeable in all aspects of facilities engineering with an emphasis on environmental issues. His specialty is environmental projects and regulations that impact facility owners, including stormwater, underground storage tanks (USTs), wastewater discharge, asbestos, lead paint, indoor air quality, hazardous waste management, spill response, and other concerns. He has conducted lectures on stormwater regulatory issues at various Facilities Officers Association conferences, and has managed stormwater projects from design through construction phases. He can be contacted at (301) 417-0200.
About the author
Michael E. Yost
Michael E. Yost, PG, CSI, has more than 20 years of experience in environmental consulting. He has managed all aspects of full-service environmental consulting projects. His clients include both government agencies and private companies. Yost has managed a variety of projects involving investigation and remediation of contaminated sites, negotiation with regulatory agencies, risk-based corrective action evaluations, and property redevelopment. His areas of specialization include Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, hydrogeologic studies, site remediation, value engineering, litigation support, health and safety, underground tank removal, environmental sampling, seismic refraction surveys, soil analysis, construction management, stormwater system assessment and repair, and geotechnical studies. He can be contacted at (301) 417-0200.
On April 2, 2008, exactly one year after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 12 states, supported by an additional five states as amicus curiae, as well as the District of Columbia, the cities of New York and Baltimore, and a number of environmental organizations, filed a petition for mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to act on remand within 60 days.