|
High Costs, Low Benefits Cited in EPA Storm Water Rules
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines for storm water discharge represents “one of the worst rulemakings ever promulgated from a cost-benefit perspective,” NAHB recently told the agency.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, NAHB voiced “grave concern” over the proposed guidelines and “the significantly negative impacts they would have on the home building industry, while not generating commensurate environmental benefits.” In one of the options being considered, it noted, the costs would outweigh the benefits by $1.554 billion.
“The industry is concerned that inefficient and ineffective regulatory mandates, and the high costs and liabilities associated with those mandates, would have deleterious impacts on home building at a time of significant economic challenges,” the letter said.
“EPA is strongly urged to proceed cautiously in promulgating the guidelines to ensure that it maximizes environmental protection, but is cost-effective for regulated entities.”
In its proposal, EPA considered three options for home builders and developers to keep rainwater runoff from construction sites out of nearby water bodies and wetlands. The one that makes the most sense from a cost and environmental point of view is the first, according to NAHB.
Option 1 relies primarily on techniques that home builders already use, including erosion and sediment control requirements — known as best management practices, or BMPs — and also mandates the use of sediment basins for certain sites.
“NAHB has consistently advocated an ELG that allows for site-specific selection of BMPs, appropriate sediment basin sizing criteria and the implementation of pollution prevention practices,” the comments said.
This choice “builds upon the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storm water permitting program and its comprehensive network of federal, state and local controls that already effectively regulate construction storm water discharges,” NAHB said.
Option 1 recognizes that storm water controls involve many site-specific determinations and analyses and that there is no single “one-size-fits-all” approach, the letter noted. “Option 1 would build upon the significant environmental progress made to date by ensuring that all construction sites meet a minimum standard of excellence by adopting those erosion and sediment controls that have evolved and are now accepted across the country.”
Option 2 imposes all of the requirements of Option 1, plus a numeric turbidity limit for sites larger than 30 acres that have high rainfall and high clay content.
This option would be expensive for all industries that disturb land, such as the home building industry, because the EPA has based its turbidity limit on the use of advanced treatment systems that use costly chemicals to treat and filter storm water discharges. A requirement to sample and monitor discharge is also a part of this option.
While the EPA has estimated that this plan would cost developers about $7,000 an acre, NAHB said the agency’s modeling is flawed and that the actual costs would be closer to $23,000 per acre.
“The industry and potential home buyers simply cannot sustain such an increase,” the letter said. “Comparing NAHB’s estimates of the ‘true’ costs of Option 2 to the benefits reveals a cost of nearly $7 billion and a benefit of only $333 million — hardly a supportable ratio.”
Option 3 expands the requirements of Option 2 to all construction sites that involve 10 or more “disturbed” acres at one time — the most broadly ranging and expensive of the EPA options.
Options 2 and 3 would result in a level of storm water discharge “that no technology can consistently achieve, yet our members will be exposed to unwarranted and unjust civil and possibly criminal liabilities. The EPA’s environmental benefits calculations grossly overestimate any benefits to be derived,” the letter said.
In addition, “there are numerous problems associated with the EPA’s data, assumptions and modeling that skew the results and underestimate the costs while overestimating the benefits. For example, the EPA grossly overestimates the current sediment loadings from construction activities by a factor of 50 to 100 times because it failed to consider the benefits of the BMPs that construction site operators already are required to implement,” NAHB said.
“The EPA also used theoretical models instead of actual data from construction sites to determine impacts,” the letter said. “Likewise, the use of poor assumptions in its cost modeling has led to significant underestimates of cost. The combination of high cost and nominal benefits during a time of economic concern is unacceptable to this industry.”
State and local home builders associations and other industries affected by the new proposal have also weighed in with comments.
The EPA is under a court-ordered deadline to create effluent limitation guidelines for the construction and development industry as the result of a lawsuit filed by the National Resources Defense Council after NAHB convinced the agency in 2004 that conventional guidelines — which are used by industries whose discharges come out of a pipe and go directly into a body of water — are too difficult to apply to home builders, whose discharges result from rainwater leaving the job site.
For more information, e-mail Ty Asfaw at NAHB, or call her at 800-368-5242 x8124.
 'Storm Water Permitting: A Guide for Builders and Developers' Available at BuilderBooks.com
“Storm Water Permitting: A Guide for Builders and Developers,” available through BuilderBooks.com, provides a starting point for builders and developers to use in locating and understanding storm water permitting requirements.
The publication has been prepared to help builders comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's storm water requirements, and includes information on state permitting programs and more than 50 of the most commonly used best management practices. Also included are tips on compliance, including how to handle visits from inspectors.
To view or purchase this guide online, click here, or call 800-223-2665.
|
