BNA

An Environmental Protection Agency official told participants at a public meeting Jan. 28 that the agency “would not dictate a one-size-fits-all approach” in developing proposed changes to its stormwater program, as some fear.

The session at EPA headquarters was the fifth such “listening session” held throughout the country to gain public input on what EPA should focus on in developing stormwater rules that protect waterbodies from the impacts of post-construction and redevelopment and possibly implement other regulatory changes.

Other sessions have been held in Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, and Dallas (17 DEN A-9, 1/28/10).

“We are very open to good ideas on how to improve the stormwater program,” said Linda Boornazian, director of EPA's Office of Wastewater Permits Division.

“We are looking at green infrastructure and low-impact development practices and really are considering the impact of what are good practices in establishing an overall management plan.” EPA officials recognize that geographic areas differ in terms of climate and soil type, Boornazian said.

Connie Bosma, branch chief in the EPA Water Permits Division branch, said agency officials will address whether there should be different standards for new development and redevelopment and consider if there should be requirements on retrofitting for existing development.

Other considerations include providing additional requirements to further reduce stormwater impacts in the Chesapeake Bay, and if there should be a single set of consistent requirements for all municipal separate sewer systems, Bosma said.

Several attendees asked to be involved in the rulemaking process and called for flexibility in any planned proposed rule.

Gene LaManna, representing the Stormwater Equipment Manufacturers Association and Terre Hill Storm Water Systems, said the association wants a place at the table to discuss innovative science-based technology. ‘We want EPA to allow us to become part of the solution to the problem and to attain the goals of the Clean Water Act,” LaManna said. “We think there are some misconceptions about the cost of clean water equipment.”

Joseph DuRant, deputy city attorney for Newport News, Va., cautioned EPA against proposing rules that create a disincentive to redevelopment projects. Pointing to problems like crime and blight that redevelopment can help reduce, DuRant expressed concern that regulations could restrict development and redevelopment and urged “maximum flexibility” in how stormwater is treated.

Nick Goldstein, assistant general counsel for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, urged that in defining “large projects” EPA consider the nature of transportation projects such as roads that are linear and cover a large number of acres.

However, the actual impacts of a transportation project on any given acre of land are often small, as only the area around the road project is involved, he said.

Echoing others at the meeting, Goldstein said one-size-fits-all minimum standards must be avoided for transportation projects. Projects in areas with heavy rainfall should not be held to the same effluent limitation standards as projects in dry, arid regions, he said. Cost issues are another consideration.

Goldstein said the association is collecting cost data on highways, which it will submit to EPA.

Keith Jones, general counsel for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, encouraged the use of green infrastructure, but said what works in one area might not work in another.

Federal Funding Called Important
He also said EPA needs to come up with additional federal funding because during this economic crisis “municipal budgets are stretched beyond the breaking point.”

Susan Gilson, executive director of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, said a proposed rule would significantly affect association members who are faced with financial constraints.

Gilson strongly urged EPA to involve engineers, scientists, regulators, municipal separate stormwater sewer system (MS4) administrators in a “strategic initiative” to evaluate current knowledge and technologies as well as their costs and benefits.
Until an evaluation of the stormwater program is accomplished, she said, no additional requirements beyond minimum control measures should be imposed on small MS4s without their agreement.

Gilson referred to a section in current Phase 2 stormwater regulations citing EPA's intention to conduct after Dec. 10, 2012, enhanced research and to compile a comprehensive evaluation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 stormwater program.
EPA has said its goal is to finalize a post-construction stormwater rule by 2012, a period some clean water advocates have criticized as too long.
Boornazian said, “It is really very early in the process” and the agency is trying to get people's views. As a start, she said, EPA is looking at recommendations of a 2008 National Research Council study on stormwater.

Jeffrey Longworth, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg, encouraged EPA during the rulemaking process to closely collaborate with the regulated community and consider how programs would be implemented on a site-specific basis.

He added that while the NRC report was a very important analysis that was being held out as “the gold standard,” the panel that developed the report did not include permittees. Longworth also cautioned against overreliance on an EPA-circulated questionnaire and said EPA officials should meet with the regulated community to discuss the proposal.