jniec Sisies
Environmental Orotect'cp
Agency
Cctooer '992
Report on
The EPA Storm Water Management Program
Conducted for the U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
by The Rensselaerville Institute
Volume 1
-------
For additional information, please contact:
The Rensselaerville Institute
Pond Hill Road
Rensselaerville NY 12147
(518) 797-3763
-------
Report on
The EPA Storm Water
Management Program
Conducted for the U.S. EPA Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
by The Rensselaerville Institute
Volume I
Final Report Submitted: October 1992
EPA Report # 830-R-92-001
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are most grateful for direction and guidance for this project provided by the Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Michael B. Cook, Director; James Home,
Project Officer.
We also acknowledge the efforts of those persons who participated in the focus groups,
the expert surveys, the public forums, and the “design team” session. The thoughtfulness
of opinions and insights voiced is impressive.
We are encouraged by the willingness of people with very different perspectives to not
only listen carefully to each other but to seek common ground. The prospects for
collaborative work are strong.
Mary E. Marsters
Harold S. Williams
The Rensselaerville Institute
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Executive Summary 1
Part I: Improving Phase I of the Storm Water Program 11
Focus Groups
DescnpDon 12
Findings 13
Part II: Designing Phase II of the Storm Water Program 27
Expert Survey
Description 28
Survey Fmdings 28
Nonpoint Source Per5pectives 32
Public Meetings
Description 34
Meeting Findings 35
Retlections on Meeting Format 38
Design Team Session
Description 40
Session FIndings 41
Additional AdvIce 48
General Recommendations 49
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 1991, the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) asked the Office of Water to undertake a research project with two objectives: 1)
identify ways to improve and streamline the existing storm water regulatory program
implemented by the agency under Section 402 (p) (2) of the Clean Water Act; and 2)
define and annotate options for controlling sources of storm water runoff designed for
Phase II of this same section.
In response to this request, the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
(OWEC) engaged The Rensselaerville Institute to develop a two-part project to gather and
integrate diverse opinion and insight on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the existing Phase I program and the best possible response for the Phase II program
designed to cover remaining storm water sources and problems.
Part I of the project was conducted during February and March, 1992 when six focus
groups were held around the U.S. to gain user feedback on how the current regulations
and implementation procedures could be improved and streamlined. These groups,
which included representation by both public- and private-sector permittees as well as
regulatory agencies, private consulting firms, industry, and environmental interests,
identified numerous ways EPA and others could address permitting and compliance
procedures seen as difficult or problematic.
Part II of the project began with an Expert Survey of 32 persons highly knowledgeable in
storm water and its control who represented different perspectives (academic/research,
state/local government, commercial development, environmental advocacy, and
consultant/engineering) and different geographic areas. Experts were asked to respond
to a set of options for targeting and controlling sources and to suggest additional
alternatives as well. Insights on voluntary measures that have proven effective in storm
water control were solicited through a separate survey of five experts in nonpoint
program approaches.
Based on the results of these surveys, three public meetings were announced in the
Federal Register and held in Denver, San Francisco and Washington, DC during June,
1992. Those attending were dMded into teams and asked to define their own preferred
strategies for a Phase II program response, including definition of sources to be
regulated, the preferred method of control (permit-based or other) and their sense of both
timetable and the role EPA should play.
Finally, a small group ot insightful indMduals representing diverse viewpoints from both
point source and nonpoint source programs was convened for a strategy design meeting
for the purpose of adding greater depth and breadth to one or more Phase II approaches
identified in the public meetings. From this group, a ten-point strategy was created, as
well as a series of recommendations to EPA on developing the second phase of the
1
-------
storm water program.
This Executive Summary presents the findings from each of these actMties in summary
form. More complete recommendations are contained in the body of Volume I. The
project data base is contained in Volume II.
Summary of Findings on Improving Phase I of the Storm Water Program
Forty indMduals participated in focus groups held in Atlanta, GA; Hartford, CT; Chicago,
IL; Washington, DC; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ. Together, the participants included
all identified viewpoints and separable interests—including EPA regional staff, state and
local government officials, engineering consultants, environmental advocates, and
representatives of corporations included in Phase I permitting.
Participants responded to a set of questions which probed for opinion and insight on
such matters as the unclear aspects of the Phase I regulations, additional steps that
should be taken to simplify the process and help permittees to achieve compliance, and
the relative merits of individual and group permits. In addition to participant responses
to core questions, the afternoon of each session was used to further elaborate problems
and solutions of interest to participants in an informative format.
While many issues raised were location- or source-specific, some spanned geographic
and demographic boundaries. Eight issues common across all focus groups were
identified as key areas to be clarified and/or modified to improve program implementation:
1. EPA has not been clear about the intended goals of the regulations. A
stronger sense of the relative importance of storm water in the framework
of environmental n k is needed, as is clarity about short range and long
term targets. There is a difference, for example between clean water
standards and stream health standards. It is clear that there are storm
water permits. It is not clear how the permits reflect a coherent program.
2. The expense of program implementation is significantly higher than EPA has
estimated. There is great concern over what the program’s costs have
been in terms of dollars and manpower costs of preparing a permit
application, and the anticipated costs of achieving compliance. A broader
concern: municipalities now beleaguered by resource shortfalls cannot
reasonably afford the combined costs of compliance with all environmental
regulations.
3. The administrative complexity of the program is enormous at the federal,
state and local levels, and has quickly outpaced the availability of resources
and manpower needed to carry it out. In some cases, field staff have been
2
-------
pulled in simply to process the paperwork involved.
4. Clarification is needed on the roles and expectations EPA has for itself,
states and permittees. What j clear to everyone is that EPA does not have
the capacity to administer and enforce the program alone. This cannot be
seen as an EPA program administered in a “command and control” style
totally from Washington. It must involve active participation, not simply
passive compliance, from all levels involved.
5. More technical support for the program is needed. Expanded information
explaining the regulations and how to implement them is especially needed.
Also, there should be less “national level” support and more focus on
regional conditions. Much of the content of storm water workshops held at
EPA headquarters is irrelevant to any given participant.
6. States need EPA to either clarify how to interpret unclear points of the
regulations, or allow them the latitude to make the interpretations
themselves. One unclear area is the inconsistencies and inequalities
created by use of industrial SiC codes in such areas as transportation.
Another murky area is the group application process.
7. EPA should consider consolidating programs in order to address water
pollution in an efficient and cost-effective manner. A watershed approach
is preferable to current practices of separating problems by media.
8. General permits are “the way to go” and EPA should continue to focus on
and accelerate efforts in this direction.
Many focus group members made a point of indicating their pleasure with the focus
group format used and the ways in which EPA had 1) encouraged interaction and
customer insight and 2) listened carefully to their advice. A complete report on focus
group responses and conclusions is contained in the body of this publication.
Summary of FIndings on Designing Phase ii of the Storm Water Program
Expert Survey
The second part of the Rensselaerville project began with a survey of a select group of
32 point source storm water program experts from across the country. The purpose was
to solicit opinions on ways to implement the second phase of the storm water program.
Five perspectives were represented: academic/research; commercial development;
consultant engineering/legal; environmental advocacy; and state/local government. A
first mail-back survey round gained opinion and consensus on relevant issues and
3
-------
options for addressing Phase II sources. Data from the first set of returned surveys were
analyzed and given back to participants in a second survey round, which refined positions
and created more options for Phase II consideration.
To ensure inclusion of all critical perspectives, five nonpoint source program experts were
asked to provide feedback, with emphasis on potential voluntary approaches for
addressing Phase II sources.
While approaches recommended differed by profession and geography, these common
targeting themes emerged for identifying whom to include in Phase I I:
• develop a geographically-based phasing plan by watershed
impairment/severity of threat;
• determine selection criteria for pollution sources and use these to identify
municipalities that should participate;
• do pilot projects first, evaluate, and then develop and implement a strategy;
• encourage and fund comprehensive basin research and planning to guide
targeting;
• require Phase II industries to be covered under Phase I general permits;
• develop national guidelines, and leave selection of sites and methods to
state discretion;
• require smaller communities (<100,000) to apply for permits only when their
storm water contributes a significant pollution problem;
• designate problem areas, establish permit requirements for municipals
regardless of population, and allow municipals to exclusively regulate
industries; and
• initiate a focused dialogue with key stakeholders (applies to both targeting
and controls).
Common themes expressed for control strategies included:
• build a Best Management Practices (BMPs) menu that can be used by
states to implement and verify progress;
4
-------
• require localities to select from a list of BMPs the ones most appropriate for
their needs and apply industry-specific BMPs nationwide with allowance for
state/local officials to modify;
• provide nationwide public education and community-wide public education
on the need for storm water control;
• establish national or industry-specific minimum practices for controlling
storm water;
• implement good housekeeping and source reduction practices;
• require routine certification and audit of storm water pollution plans and
practices;
• establish industry-specific and watershed-specific BMPs; and
• establish BMPs required nationwide and strictly enforce. Require facilities
to further treat storm water discharges where BMPs are not effective.
The strongest additional factor in nonpoint survey responses was the degree of emphasis
placed on education at all levels, including the general public, local and state officials, and
local businesses and industry. Education was seen as the key to making voluntary
approaches effective. Voluntary compliance, in turn, was then advanced as highly cost
effective.
Respondents feel that EPA must be the NstickN that would fall--with permit requirements,
fines, etc.--if a storm water source does not voluntarily take action and achieve certain
minimum goals. But limited menpower and financial resources form a rationale for n t
addressing Phase II with the costly conventional federal mandates of Phase I.
Public Meetings
Three meetings were conducted to gain public responses to options for targeting and
controlling Phase II sources. They were held in Denver, CO; San Francisco, CA; and
Washington, DC during June, 1992. At each meeting, three experts selected from the
Expert Survey process presented their ideas on a regulating strategy for the moratorium
sources. Participants were then dMded into small task teams, and given the charge of
devising their own strategies for targeting and controlling Phase II sources. A strategy
template was provided to guide group consideration of three key issues: 1) who should
be covered under Phase II; 2) what controls are needed; 3) over what timeframe the
program should be implemented. At the end of each public meeting, the task teams
presented their options to other participants for discussion.
5
-------
Common strategy characteristics emerged, in many cases paralleling those apparent in
the expert survey. For targeting:
o Targeting should be done by watershed. Information gathered from Phase
I should help identify sensitive watersheds. This may require
intergovernmental agreements.
o The focus should be on bad actors”, i.e., those that are known problem
sources. The ones most frequently identified were: gas/auto seMce
industries, transportation, highway systems, land use development and
agricultural sources. There needs to be the ability for facilities not
contributing impairment of water to gain an exemption from permits, fees,
implementation of BMPs. Categories are an ineffective way to designate
covered sources - should be done by the degree of risk a given facility
poses, because it may not be a whole industry, but rather individual
facilities.
o Small municipalities should be included, but they should have a much
simpler application process. Or, only small municipalities where a storm
water problem is identified should there be required action.
O EPA should defer on selecting targeted sources until the agency has
carefully looked at the data gathered during Phase I. Numerous sources
of information are available which would help determine targeting priorities,
e.g., information gathered through 305b reports, information from Phase I
program sources, the NURP study.
For needed and desirable controls, these themes emerged:
o If a permitting process is to be continued for point sources, NPDES general
permits should be used, and focus should be on implementing Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Permits should be simpler, and much less
costly. EPA should make clearer to the applicant what information is
required, e.g. provide the permittee with a checklist of inclusions” for the
application, develop a menu of BMPs. Permit exemptions should be
granted to those targeted sources who offer no contribution to the problem.
o Education should be seen not as an “add-on”, but rather as a primary tool
for effective control. Locally implemented education for public arid industry
is especially important; the premise is that information and conviction born
of education will encourage many to take the needed preventive and
remedial steps.
o More emphasis should be placed on voluntary programs, e.g., 319 nonpoint
6
-------
source-like programs. For facilities with contact with storm water, there
should be little or no government intervention, but rather emphasis on
pollution prevention incentives, BMPs, and measures of pollution prevention.
Pollution prevention programs should be emphasized, particularly with new
development. Some suggested prevention methods included: recycling
storm water, “good housekeeping’ practices, plantings to minimize runoff,
street sweeping of work areas on a daily basis, storm water collection
methods, coverage of storage areas, changing manufacturing processes to
minimize pollutants, and improvement of air emissions.
o Closer correlation should exist between the severity of the problem and the
degree of controls required. Fines and fee structures could be used as
“c otstick measures.
o BMPs should be required based upon the specific pollutant problem. EPA
should develop a menu of BMPs to assist businesses in determining the
appropriate BMP for their problem.
In terms of a timetable for phasing in Phase II, two widespread opinions emerged:
O A minimum of two years is needed to prepare for Phase II, with at least a
year dedicated to looking at data gained from Phase I of the storm water
program. Effectiveness of presently used BMPs needs to be studied to
determine differences in effectiveness between geographic locations and
pollutants.
0 Whatever the period established for phase-in, it should not begin until
promulgation of the regulations.
A final question in the strategy template: UFor whatever strategy Is chosen, what could
EPA do to make the decision-making process for Phase II more responsive?
generated responses focused on some common themes:
O Coordinate information dissemination, e.g., set up regional clearinghouses
offering such program information as general permit writing, effective
applications of BMPs, and examples of successful efforts from programs
around the country.
O Provide funding not for program implementation but for needed research,
e.g., on BMP effectiveness, and for demonstration projects.
O Set broad guidelines for the program and establish minimum standards, and
then allow state and local regulatory agencies determine how to achieve
7
-------
them.
O Develop and implement training programs I or regulators, including regiona
and state, on the program. These people are the ones who will be thb
informational source for the regulated community, and need to know the
details of the program.
As with the focus groups the participants in the public meetings felt positive about the
format used. A mail-back survey returned by more than 30% of meeting participants
showed that they strongly favored this interactive process over what they perceived as
the conventional practice of a stream of public comments that encouraged adversarial
positioning and boredom for those listening. Comments of attendees included:
o “The opportunity to formulate an entire strategy to deal with this issue was
very useful;”
o “I obtained a better point of view of government’s problems and felt that
government representatives also obtained a better point of view of
industry’s problems;”
o “Result was a much less confrontational and much more problem-soMng
atmosphere;” and
o “It was a valuable way to address drafting of regulations, allowing the
regulated community to feel a part of the process.”
The body of this report contains a further elaboration of the process and the ways in
which it might be used by the EPA in other communication and outreach efforts.
Design Team Meeting
A meeting of seven point and non-point storm water program experts, all of whom were
survey respondents, and selected EPA staff was convened in Washington DC on
September 17-18, 1992. The purpose was to gain the experts’ varied insights on
development of the Phase II storm water program and to build a strategy, or multiple
strategies, for addressing Phase II sources.
Many discussions were specific to certain types of activity--not only municipal or industrial,
but to specific kinds and levels of enterprise. Others focused on regional differences--for
example the strong distinctions from places that are uniformly wet, uniformly dry, or highly
volatile in hydrological terms. Still others found differentiation in scale--such as the
difference in impact a regulation would have on a city as compared to a small town.
These distinct findings are contained in the full report which follows in this volume.
8
-------
A broader set of ten recommendations emerged for the major Phase II challenge which
generally transcend such differences. They include:
1. It Is possible and desirable to identifg priority target areas for which
there is widespread consensus concerning their contribution to water
pollution. These areas begin with new development and redevelopment--
both residential and commercial. They also include transportation corridors,
dense existing development and automotive services.
2. EPA needs to communicate more clearly and regularly with everyone
Impacted by the storm water regulations. The priority focus should be
less on the amount of communication and more on different kinds of
communication.
3. EPA could improve program effectiveness, efficiency and cost control
in Phase II by starting smair. The concept of regional and even local
prototypes is a way of getting proposed new Phase II frameworks into the
hands of users in prompt fashion to build and refine based on early use.
4. Selectivity in data collection and monitoring is essential. At present,
some data collection frameworks consume tremendous time and money
only to yield bad or useless data or murky or disputed conclusions. At other
times, very simple actions taken with known consequences require simple
verification, not extensive measuring.
5. More customer differentiation Is also needed. At present the mind-set
appears to be that one size fits all. While gMng the appearance of equity,
this concept actually creates strong inequalities. The same programs and
regulations that befit a large corporation or municipality are simply not
equitable for smaller enterprise and communities, for example.
6. While the ultimate goal Is water quality standards, this is very difficult
to achieve and/or to measure in the short term. Therefore, while
retaining water quality standards as the ultimate goal, EPA should be
focusing on best management practices, and in particular those that reflect
preventive and non-structural solutions.
7. The most functional unit of both analysis and intervention Is the
watershed. Most people in our samples for opinion and recommendation
strongly suggested the watershed approach--not only on the macro level
(e.g., Chesapeake Bay) but the micro-level as well.
9
-------
8. EPA’s role is to offer technical support and direction more than
program funding or even full guidelines for state and local
Implementation. In particular, building useful data bases and collectio
methodologies not only on water quality but on practices to achieve ft is
critical. Such practices should include education, given that prevention and
voluntary compliance are much lass costly than litigation.
9. A collaborative approach to developing effective solutions Is possible.
The interactive elements of this project are one reflection of the ability of
those with strikingly different perspectives (ranging from strong
environmental protection to a focus on economic development) to work
cooperatively.
10. Agrlcufture’s absence from the storm water program Is notable and
regrettable. In many regions, agriculture (which includes livestock as well
as crops) is a primary contributor to surface water pollution. Permitting or
in other ways controlling the transport of agricultural products introduces
intervention too late.
The remainder of Volume I amplifies these findings and presents the rationales and key
data points which underlie them. Volume II includes the complete data base, including
all instruments used to collect and analyze information.
10
-------
PART I: IMPROVING PHASE I OF ThE STORM WATER PROGRAM
In December, 1991, the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency asked the Office of Water to undertake a project that would achieve two results:
first, identify ways to improve and streamline the existing storm water regulatory program
currently being implemented by the agency; and second, develop options for controlling
sources of storm water runoff not currently required to be permitted under Section
402(p)(2) of the Clean Water Act.
In response to this request, the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
(OWEC), working with The Rensselaerville Institute, developed a two-part project. This
section addresses the outcomes from Part I, which focused on identifying improvements
to the existing regulatory program.
11
-------
&, iI UyU JUI
As the first part of The Rensselaerville Institute’s project to help EPA assess thd
effectiveness and efficiency of the existing Storm Water Program, focus groups were held
in diverse regions of the country to gain feedback on how the regulations promulgated
on November 16, 1990 could be streamlined and improved. Six such meetings
comprising representatives from state, municipal, private industrial and environmental
groups were conducted between February 24 - March 2, 1992.
A total of 40 individuals participated in the focus groups, which were held in Atlanta, GA;
Hartford, CT; Chicago, IL; Washington, DC; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ. The format
for each meeting was the same: participants provided feedback on eleven questions
developed by EPA and Institute staff. The questions:
1. Which aspects of the storm water regulations are least clear?
2. What additional steps would be helpful in assisting perTmttees achieve
compliance in the allotted timeframe? Who should take those steps?
3. Exactly what kinds of guidance and information are needed to help people
implement the program? How would you prioritize these listed storm water
program actMties in terms of their usefulness?
4. Is there a need for EPA to do more national workshops on the storm water
regulations? What about regional or local workshops? On which subjects?
5. What support should states, as opposed to EPA or other organizations, be
expected to provide to their “universe of permittees? What resources do
they need in order to provide those supports?
6. If you had to name three ways to streamline the permitting process, what
would they be?
7. What could EPA do to encourage those states without general permit
authority to get it? What steps are needed to get general permits out?
What simple, short-term grassroots efforts can associations and trade
groups take to help this effort, and how could EPA support those efforts?
8. What outreach efforts to explain to permittees what they have to do to
comply with the regulations have been most effective to date? Are there
informational pieces that EPA could prepare that would best help these
efforts?
12
-------
9. What are the techniques, methods or strategies you would recommend to
help permittees achieve water quality standards? In what timeframe should
perrnittees be required to comply with WQS?
10. Given that construction actMties are most often local in nature and
temporary in duration, do you have suggestions about how EPA could more
effectively regulate such actMties?
11. What suggestions would you offer in terms of the most efficient way to
enforce EPA existing regulation requirements, both application requirements
and substantive permitting requirements?
Responses to question #6 were revisited in the afternoon of each session, when
participants were asked to further define their recommendations, indicate who they felt
should be responsible for initiating the changes, and list the initial steps they would take.
Response summaries were drafted following each meeting and sent to participants for
additions and modifications. Their changes were incorporated into their respective
reports. This overall report summarizes, interprets, and analyzes group discussions and
conclusions.
Focus Group Findings
Despite the many issues surrounding implementation of the regulations, the consensus
of all focus groups, including industrial representatives, was that storm water control is
needed and appropriate. There was general agreement that storm water is a significant
contributor to water pollution. Some felt that a regulatory program was appropriate to
address the problem. A number of participants expressed that, overall, the storm water
program is significantly more rational and easier to deal with than other EPA water
programs, for example, the wetlands program.
Yet the storm water regulations still inspire much confusion and frustration. There is
frustration with EPA, as well. Many felt there was a lack of consideration given to their
inputs by the agency prior to promulgation of the regulations, and some thought that EPA
had been unresponsive to questions and concerns voiced since the regulations went into
effect. When pressed, however, most admitted that they perceived this to be an endemic
or generic problem of government. For a few, this perception will not be changed.
However, most were impressed that EPA was now willing to actually look at the storm
water program and solicit input from those dealing with the regulations on how they
could be improved or streamlined.
Reservation was voiced, however, that EPA would do nothing with the recommendations
generated from these focus groups. Their concern was that the resufts would have as
little impact on EPA’s decision-making and responsiveness as had previous efforts to
13
-------
make their opinions known.
It is critical, therefore, that EPA identify those procedural changes made in response to
the recommendations, and make them known both to focus group participants specifically
and to the permitted and regulatory communities in general.
The range of concerns voiced was large, and differed between geographic regions and
the representational make-up of the group. Each group raised issues that were quite
specific to themselves or their region, e.g., New York City was concerned about the
effects of tidal flow and backwater as they relate to water quality; Utah and other arid and
semi-and states were concerned about sampling procedures when there was scarce
rainfall; Seattle felt that the regulations did not allow its storm water program to build on
earlier work; general contractors do not understand why concrete mixing requires a
separate permit even though it is done on the construction site, etc. The specificity of
concerns for each group is reflected in the indMdual summary reports, which are included
in Volume II.
Some issues and concerns identified, however, spanned geographic and demographic
boundaries. They were raised across groups as key areas in need of clarification and/or
modification. There were seven broad areas identified where members felt efforts should
be made to improve and streamline the storm water regulations.
1. Permittees and regulatory agencies feel that the EPA has not been clear
about the intended goals of the regulations. A view of the bigger plcturV
is wanted.
While group members agree that storm water is a contributory factor to water
pollution, there does not seem to be an understanding of what EPA hopes to
achieve with the regulations promulgated in November 1990. A frequently heard
comment was that the big picture is missing. Participants felt that EPA has not
been clear about how these regulations will accomplish the goal of achieving clean
water, and in what timeframe. This has hampered efforts to comply because many
do not understand what they should be setting as performance targets.
One participant said, ‘What a clean urban stream? TM The point: participants were
not sure what goals they need to attain to comply with the regulations and protect
themselves from being sued or fined for non-attainment. Almost all participants felt
that water quality standards were useful as the ultimate goal toward which to work,
but were unachievable in a two- or three-year period. When asked what they felt
would be a reasonable timeframe, estimates ranged from five to thirty years, with
a few participants indicating that, given the large number of pollutant sources
impacting on a given water body, achievement of water quality standards through
the storm water program alone is a strong improbability. One participant stated
that the scientific community’s perspective is, .. .there is no way water quality
14
-------
standards can be achieved with known storm water technologies”; it will take
further research and development of BMPs before water quality standards could
be achieved.
It was clear that members need more guidance about where the program is
headed. Participants want EPA to be more explicit about what should be achieved
in terms of improvement of water quality in the timeframes that have been given
and with the technologies that are presently available.
Group members were aware that environmental advocacy groups will bring
pressure on EPA to hold to established numerical water quality standards, and that
reducing or replacing them is not likely a viable option. As one representative from
an environmental advocacy organization stated regarding water quality standards,
“...(they are) the a!i of the Clean Water Act?’ Participants felt, however, that
EPA needs to explicitly acknowledge that cleaning up the waters of the U.S. is a
long-term effort that requires federal, state and local governments to work in
partnership with permittees rather than through “command and control”
relationships. Permittees fear being sued for non-compliance when in fact they are
making the best efforts possible.
Permittees and regulatory agencies want EPA to provide them the time and
support they need to design and implement storm water programs that make
sense in terms of effectiveness and cost. They feel that EPA, by not clearly stating
goals, has hampered efforts to deal with the problem; permittees are not sure
which approaches to take because they don’t know what they have to achieve.
They want the guidance and information necessary to implement the most
appropriate measures available for their discharges, and the time to evaluate those
efforts. As one group member observed, “...What is needed is a longer period
(than the permit period) to do BMPs - and then monitor their effectiveness. Where
necessary, go back and change things. It’s an evolutionary process. This is not
a quick tech fix! EPA is creating more problems than answers. October 1 should
not be 1992, it should be 1995.”
If EPA is to achieve success with the program, it needs to address confusion over
program goals and timeframes. The agency needs to be explicit about what it
expects industrial and municipal permittees to accomplish in the first permit period,
what they expect them to achieve in the longer term, and what they anticipate the
impact of the storm water program to be on overall water quality.
2. The cost of program implementation is significantly higher than EPA
estimates. There Is great concern over what the program’s j ! costs have
been In terms of dollars and manpower.
A great concern of focus group members was the excessive cost of preparing a
15
-------
permit application, and the anticipated costs of achieving compliance. A number
of state representatives indicated that implementation of their state program took,
in terms of staff time alone, more than all other water programs combined - without
the concomitant added federal dollars that those programs provided. That EPA
has provided minimum federal dollars for the program is a major issue.
Municipalities and industries were concerned with the significant additional costs
of manpower and technology needed for both application and compliance. One
focus group participant brought for discussion a study done by the School of
Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. The study has identified that
the actual mean cost for Part 1 of the municipal application process for 59 cities
exceeded by six times the EPA-estimated costs of the program [ Gebhardt &
Lindsey (1992), NNPDES Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems: Costs and Concemsu].
That EPA has set aside some monies to assist in program development is not
commonly known information. There was confusion among a number of focus
group members about the availability and applicability of grant monies, e.g. 104(b)
funds, that dedicated to implementation of the program. For example, within
the same focus group, one person said that they had applied for and received the
funds to help prepare their application; another member replied that they were told
that the monies could be used for that purpose. Members of some groups
were unaware that the funds were available at all. This indicates that
communication from EPA has been inadequate in letting eligible groups know that
there are some, albeit limited, dollars available to help them in setting up their
programs, and that there has been inconsistent communication about the
guidelines for use of those funds. Further, every person who indicated knowledge
of the money also noted that the funds available were minuscule in comparison to
what was needed to actually get their programs up and running.
Some states have developed the necessary revenue-gathering mechanisms to fund
their storm water program. One state representative indicated that, by charging
permit fees, they have been able to hire six staff people for the program. A few
other state representatives indicated that storm water utilities had been successful
in helping to raise the funds necessary for program operations. A significant
number, however, contend that their state does not have the funds to implement
the program, nor do they have a system devised to raise these funds. Therefore,
wholehearted efforts are not being made to respond to the regulations. Further,
some states have implied that they do not consider storm water a priority, and
therefore are not willing to devote any portion of their budget to the program. This
latter point creates a significant problem for the thousands of permittees in such
a state that are then without a critical support system to provide them guidance
and technical assistance.
The storm water field in general is perplexed that EPA could promulgate these
16
-------
regulations, without at least providing “seed monies” to assist the application
process and help states set up their own revenue-generating systems. To some,
the message EPA sent by not providing funds is that the agency itseif is not
invested in the program. If EPA plans to continue to regulate storm water without
providing financial assistance, one way it could assist permittees is to provide
guidance and examples of successful fund raising systems that some states have
devised, e.g., storm water utilities.
3. The administration of the program Is enormous. Clarification Is needed on
the roles and expectations EPA has for Itself, states and permittees.
Much of the controversy surrounding the regulations arises from unclear
delineation of the roles, responsibilities and authority of each level. What I clear
to everyone is that EPA alone does not have the capacity to administer and
enforce the program. Therefore, much responsibility must fall on state and
municipal levels. However, the regulations do not delineate the responsibilities of
each level. Group members were clear that they want EPA to be more decisive
and explicit about what expected of states and municipalities in terms of
administration and enforcement, and the areas where they will be allowed authority
and flexibility in decision-making.
Some state and local governments have not waited for EPA to define their roles.
The regulatory deadlines were powerful motivators for them to move forward
without such guidance. Thus, frequently heard was states’ hesitancy to discuss
with EPA what they were doing programmatically, because they were afraid they
might not be doing it “righr, i.e. in accord with what EPA wants done. They were
concerned about asking EPA for clarity they feared the agency might take away
their assumed authority since it had not been specifically assigned in the first
place. A number of state representatives admitted that they interpret the
regulations in their own way rather than wait for EPA to provide interpretation. As
one state representative put it, . . .we looked at the regs as guidance rather than
rules. We do it our own way. We are not sure if it is appropriate, (so) I have
concerns asking for guidance from EPA because they may take away our latitude
to make our own judgments.
The vagueness in assignment of responsibility and authority has clearly hampered
program implementation. It may have been the intention of EPA to be less specific
so that other entities would make their own interpretations, but they clearly do not
feel comfortable assuming responsibility or authority. Many have been frustrated
by the agency’s lack of response when trying to gain clarity of the regulations.
For example, one trade association representative stated that, in order to inform
his membership about the regulations, he wanted to publish in their trade
newsletter an article that outlined their members’ responsibilities under them. To
ensure that his interpretation was in accord with EPA’s, he submitted the article to
17
-------
EPA for review. In his words, “I waited a month, and when EPA did not respond,
I went ahead and printed it. They [ EPA] didn’t like that.”
Some state representatives said that they were unwilling to help industrial people
make decisions on whether they are covered by the regulations, because they do
not want to be held accountable when EPA has not specificaoy given states the
authority to make interpretations of the SIC codes. Participants felt that the states
are more likely than EPA to know the specifics of the industries in their boundaries,
and also to know which ones are high-risk pollutant sources. But states do not
feel that EPA has given them the authority to use that knowledge to make their
own judgments on whether an industry is covered or not.
Industries also feel unsure about their responsibilities under the regulations, and
are turning to the states for guidance. The regulations are unclear, for example,
about what level of program implementation is expected in a given timeframe. As
one state representative put it, “...there needs to be some guidance from EPA to
the on what (industries) need to do!”
States feel they have more knowledge of the industrial risks within their boundaries,
and know what is needed to bring those risks into compliance. A number of focus
group members cited the uselessness of having EPA develop requirements and
guidance for any given industry when it did not understand specific industries.
They felt it far more effective for EPA to work with industrial representatives when
developing materials to ensure clarity and correctness. This would likely create the
added benefit of gaining industry’s commitment to achieving certain results.
Given the magnitude of these regulations, the lack of funding available to support
implementation, the fiscal constraints under which all levels of government are
operating, and the limited staff at each level, working in partnership with states and
permittees rather than through a “command and control” relationship could get the
program in place more quickly and maximize its effectiveness. EPA needs to
determine each government level’s responsibilities, be explicit about what decisions
and flexibility can be allowed, and be clear about what resufts are expected from
each level of government if given the authority to interpret certain aspects of the
regulations.
4. More supporting Information for the program Is needed, and dissemination
of that Information needs to be Improved.
Information supplementary to the regulations, explaining them and providing
explicit information on how to implement them, was cited as a critical need that had
only partially been met. All focus group members gave feedback on those pieces
of EPA-generated information they thought was useful, what they felt was not
helpful, and what other information they desired or felt was needed. They also
18
-------
addressed the regulations themselves as a source of information.
a. Written Documents
Written information EPA has provided to supplement the regulations, such as
guidance documents and supportive materials, received overall good reviews.
Numerous participants stated that both the Industrial and Municipal Permit
Application Guidances were helpful.
The primary problem with much of the written guidance and information is that it
is coming out too late to be useful. A number of participants indicated that a
model general permit would have been helpful, but that they were at the point of
writing their own, so for them it was too late. Often group members’ suggestions
for specific informational documents were accompanied by the caveat that it was
needed now , e.g., permit writers guidance; Model Permits for MS4s; a BMP
manual; Construction ActMty Guidance.
Not everyone wants to receive new information at this point in the program. A
number of participants said, “Don’t do anything.. .We have a track; anything that
would confuse that would be a problem. Even clarification. We have an idea for
what we want to do and if guidance comes out now, it might conflict with what we
want to do.”
One person commented that EPA should prepare guidance documents so that
they can be released concurrently with promulgation of the regulations. This would
avoid not having them ready in a useful timeframe. A number of participants felt
that EPA should be more willing to release information in draft form if the; fiiiai
document is going to be late. EPA should make preparing information for Phase
II of the program a priority; the timeliness of delivery is a reflection of the
program’s credibility and of EPA’s commitment to the program. It is clear that
those who have gone forth without the support of written guidance are going to
be highly resistant to any input by EPA that would require them to modify what
has already been done.
Dissemination of EPA documents has been inconsistent. Regions vary in their
thoroughness of distribution. One group member said, “...EPA needs to be better
at getting this stuff to us. I often have somebody walk into the office with
something that has been out for three months that I have not seen.” This
frustration was echoed in a number of the focus groups. EPA needs to publish a
list of available documents which people can request either in writing or through
the Hotline.
19
-------
b. Verbal Communications
The Storm Water Hotline received mixed reviews from group members. The
primary response was that it effectively addressed very basic questions, but that
the program had advanced quickly to the point where more technical information
was needed. Trust in the ability of those answering the phones to address
complex issues was low. However, this is not an unusual response to Hotlines;
often callers complain that information given is inadequate, inconsistent, or not
appropriate to the situation of the caller.
Some focus group members stated they were pleased with the response they had
gotten from the Hotline. Some indicated that they were relieved just to have
someone to call for program information. Others felt it was a good way to confirm
their “hunches. Overall, given the size of the program and the number of phone
calls that have been received, the perception of the Hotline is relatively positive.
Some altemathie roles were suggested for the Hotline. Members stated that it
could be used as an information clearinghouse, having available a list of sources
that callers could turn to for more technical information. One person suggested
that operators have lists of experts in categories to whom they could refer callers
for more information.
One frustration voiced was that reaching EPA staff people was a problem. This
has created for some the perception that EPA headquarters staff are
unapproachable. On the practical side, however, responding to all the phone calls
they receive would tie up all available staff for the duration of the program;
headquarters staff would do nothing but answer phone calls. Yet it is important
to recognize that this problem influences people’s perception of EPA’s commitment
to the program. Perhaps with EPA’s attention to the more substantive items listed
in this report, e.g., getting documentation out in a more timely manner and with
more thorough dissemination, etc., this perception will self-correct.
c. Workshops . . , sentauons
AO groups felt that workshops of national scope were no longer needed, because
the issues being dealt with were now more technically specific to certain industries
or areas. The consensus was that state and local workshops, providing industry-
specific guidance and information on water pollution control, were most needed.
Most felt that such workshops should be sponsored and planned by trade
associations and other membership associations like APWA, WEF, ASIWPCA, etc.
rather than EPA. They feel that EPA should be a speaker at the programs, and
be willing to help address the federal perspectives in response to local concerns.
A main concern of group members, from coast to coast, is reaching those
20
-------
industries who are covered by the regulations; many businesses covered under
the regulations do not know that they must apply for a permit. Trade associations
were recommended as one of the best ways to get to the harder-to-reach
permittees (usually referred to as “Mom-and-Pops”), but even they are limited to
those businesses who are members. Group members mentioned other avenues
through which they have tried to reach these businesses, such as direct mailings
to municipalities and working through Chambers of Commerce. None have been
completely effective. Most members said that this was not solely EPA’s
responsibility, but also one of states, local governments and trade associations as
well. EPA could support this effort by suggesting methods for reaching these
businesses, and contacts at the national level that could be helpful, e.g., Small
Business Administration.
d. The Regulations as Information
The Federal Register notice of the regulations was considered by participants to
be a key source of information about the program. Numerous comments were
made about its inability to convey needed information clearly and concisely.
Length, layout, language and accessibility were identified as deterrents for many
“laypeople” to comprehend them.
One member said the length was approximately 127 pages too long; he felt it
should have been three pages, with a focus on what the regulations will do to
reduce water pollution. Many felt that the regulations were not user-friendly
because of the language used, which they referred to as “legalese”. One person
remarked, ‘What is needed is an English version of the regs!” The citations were
claimed to be confusing, and some felt substantive requirements were “buried” in
the wrong section, e.g., important permitted industrial actMties were in the
Definitions section, and municipal requirements were scattered throughout rather
than placed in a “Municipals” section. Another noted that the three-column format
was difficult to read for most not used to the Federal Register format.
Many noted that the Federal Register is a publication that may be picked up by
large businesses, but would rarely find its way into the smaller ones. Given
the widespread impact of the regulations, there is valid concern that EPA views the
Federal Register as a primary method to “get the word out.” They felt this was not
a good assumption, since circulation of the Federal Register is very limited, leaving
the vast majority of those industries covered by the regulations unaware that they
are affected.
There is need for a more clearly stated version of the storm water regulations.
Trade associations have done a great deal to try to reduce the regulations to
laymen’s terms for their members. But when supplemental guidance documents,
which are more reader-friendly than the regulations, are not quickly forthcoming
21
-------
and the regulations provide the only source of information, confusion is inevitable.
5. The regulations lack clarity on a number of key aspects. State authorities
need EPA to either clarify these poInts 01 the regulations, or they need EPA
to allow them the latitude to make the Interpretations themselves.
During each focus group, members discussed many particular points of the
regulations that they had found unclear. These varied from group to group,
depending on the perspectives represented. As one would guess, points that to
a municipal person lacked clarity were often different than issues of concern to an
industrial representative. For example, industrial representatives spoke of confusion
with deadlines as a result of the Surface Transportation Act amendments, how to
pick the appropriate permit to apply for, and how industries connected to municipal
sewer systems should deal with the regulations. Municipal representatives, on the
other hand, mentioned specific sampling and field screening methods, the
definition of Maximum Extent Practicable, what to do about application sampling
requirements in the face of drought conditions, and how to classify industrial parks
as issues that lacked clarity. Further, participants felt there were some aspects
where there was room for interpretation. Important to them was knowing where
they would have latitude to make interpretations.
Presented here are the areas commonly identified as in need of clarification by
EPA.
a. Who Is covered under the lndustrlal SIC codes:
Every group questioned EPA’s use of the Standard Industrial Classification
codes to determine which industries should be included under the
regulations. The consensus was that these codes, which are economic
indicators, are inappropriate for regulations that deal with environmental
issues. Their use has caused a great deal of confusion as various
industries try to apply them to their UprimajyR activities. Businesses don’t
know how to use them to determine if they are included under the
regulations - and regulatory agencies are very reluctant to make that call for
them given the “downside of either decision. Group members indicated
that the Transportation category (#8) and the category of Exposure (#11)
were the most problematic and inconsistent.
One state representative said that trying to get businesses past this first
decision point had consumed most of the manpower in their office. They
were receiving 80-90 phone calls a day Jla i on that question; they had to
hire a temp” to respond to these phone calls and refer callers either to an
EPA field office or a consultant. Another group member said that they did
one informational mailing to businesses in their county, and were flOOded
22
-------
with 7,000 phone calls; they did not know how to respond to callers, so
they ended up hiring a consultant to handle the questions.
One comment from a member in the Phoenix group accurately represents
the feeling expressed across focus groups: “It is virtually impossible to
determine who needs a permit.. .You are not looking at the runoff quality
with the SIC codes. I do not know of an existing code that looks at runoff,
and that ought to be the basis of the code (used for these regulations).”
EPA needs to clarify how these codes are to be used. As one member
stated, “0MB decided to use the SIC codes for other than they were
intended. EPA (therefore) must define how to use it; this needs research
and an environmental interpretation done.” EPA also needs to be explicit
about states’ liability if their interpretations of coverage are different from
what EPA’s would have been. One group member suggested that EPA put
together a brief (1-2 page) guidance summary to help industries decide
whether they are covered, and also to develop descriptive categories of
industries covered. EPA needs to define the minimum criteria for coverage
to help regulatory agencies and industries determine their status, and then
give latitude to states to use Best Professional Judgment when making
decisions to include or exclude a given industry.
b. Exposure:
The category of “exposure” was cited by all groups as one of the two most
difficult to determine. Members requested that EPA allow regulatory
agencies to use Best Professional Judgment in determining which industries
should be covered. Examples were mentioned, included the artist doing
metal sculptures (all his actMties took place indoors), and the farmer
trucking potatoes to the potato chip factory (he was advised to cover his
load with a tarp). As one member stated, decisions on whether an industry
falls under the exposure category need to be determined on a case-by-case
basis, and may require a site visit for a final decision to be made. Members
did feel this category was “good” because it is the only one that is risk-
based, yet “bad” primarily because exposure is “fuy”.
EPA needs to allow states to develop their own definition and criteria for
exposure, reach agreement with them, and be comfortable with the
possibility that states may be different. The enormous number of covered
industries under the category would otherwise exhaust EPA’s resources to
deal with it.
23
-------
c. The group application process:
Focus group members feel that the group application process has created
significant confusion among permittees; there is no such thing as a group
permit, yet there are large numbers of industries that participated in a group
application still under the impression that they will be covered by a group
permit. As a number of participants stated, “(those who applied for one)
think group applications mean group permits. And that is not the case.”
One industrial member voiced their frustration: industry feels that the group
application was misrepresented. (We thought,) this looks good; we can
band together, demonstrate our likeness, devise sampling techniques, and
regulate accordingly. Then we heard that you don’t get a group permit; you
get sent to the next tier down - the state. And the state then decides what
you get... This has discouraged us from being proactive, forward thinking,
because the rules keep changing in mid-stream.”
Some members thought the group application was a useful process. One
stated, “The group application process will get the best information at the
least cost. it is the best research process because you can control it. For
example, the textile industry: consultants wili get together with them to
determine how sampling and BMPS will be done. It provides a source of
comparison within industry.”
EPA needs to let participating industries know what the process is about,
what the next steps will be for them after application review, and where
there will be extended timeframes for them to submit a NOl under a general
permit or an indMdual permit application.
6. EPA needs to consider consolidating programs in order to address water
pollution In an efficient and cost-effective manner.
All groups suggested that EPA look at consolidating the different water programs
for greater cost-efficiency arid effectiveness. Rather than looking at it by different
water source, e.g., storm water, wastewater, wetlands, etc., limited federal
resources could be applied on a prioritized basis by watershed. Group members
felt that this approach would eliminate redundant efforts across programs, allow
dollars to be spent by risk priority rather than through separate program allocation,
and have a more profound effect on reducing water pollution.
The perception is that present programs are more interested in “bean counting”;
that is, keeping their present funding levels at the expense of the environment.
One group member said, “Avoid bean counting.. .Transfer the funds to where it
makes sense. Some water bodies have five different funding streams. (EPA)
24
-------
should look at one water body, and look at point and non-point factors. See if we
can pull the program together to yield an environmentally efficient program that
brings all this together. This would form a prototype of pollution elimination by
integration of programs.” Another sugg&ted the development of a “water
pollution block grant.”
In no group was there a concrete discussion on how EPA would accomplish this
at a federal level, although many thought that a start would be to get people from
each of the programs to “sit down together in the same room” to discuss ways of
working together toward the same goals. State representatives were aware of
program separation at their level, and cited the different funding streams - with
some programs having far more than others - available for each one. It is clear
that most would like to see a strategy in place that allows monies to be allocated
based upon watershed priority. This ability to be able to shift funds between
programs many felt would have eased the financial burden of getting their storm
water programs up and running.
7. EPA should continue to focus on general permits In order to get the program
implemented as efficiently as possible.
One of the most-mentioned ways of reducing regulatory burden was the use of
general permits to cover as many industries as possible. Many state participants
voiced frustration at EPA’s slowness in getting a model general permit out, and
some remarked on their slowness in reviewing state applications for general permit
authority. One indicated that it had taken their state nit mo!:ith for approval. Yet
groups were unanimous that general permits are an excellent way to streamline the
program.
Participants fe’t that states should want permit authority; as one member put it,
.they should want control over their own destiny.” States that have not applied
for general permit authority, such as New York, are seen by permit applicants as
unhelpful. One voiced frustration that his state DEC office could not provide
assistance when he needed it, because the state had chosen to “ignore” the
regulations; he has looked to the regional EPA office for assistance, even though
he was not sure that was the “right” route for him to go. Another state
representative said that her state wants authority because “they could then issue
more permits, cover more people. It’s revenue-producing, and the dollars would
come into (our) department.”
Many participants predicted that states without general permit authority will be
overwhelmed by the number of indMdual permits. They felt that EPA, as well as
state and national trade associations, should make states aware of the
consequences of not having general permit authority. One suggestion often heard
was to get trade associations involved in lobbying state legislatures to put pressure
25
-------
on their state government. Some members recommended that EPA also put
pressure on states to apply for permit authority by using a carrot-stick approac
assist them to apply, but withhold program monies from non-delegated stat
Others suggested that the carrot be doliars, such as the 106 monies, used as an
incentive. Participants felt that getting most industries into the program under a
general permit umbrella would establish a baseline for the program so that.a tiered
approach could be used to identify and deal with pollutant sources.
It was evident from comments that some state representatives would like to see
a model general permit. They are looking for guidance in developing their own,
and models--either EPA-generated or state-generated--would obviously assist
states in drafting their own. Critical to this effort is that this assistance be made
available as quickly as possible.
There is a common thread across these seven issues. That thread is the need for more
and clearer communication, from use of terminology and language more familiar to the
“layperson”, to explicit guidance on fund raising approaches to support program
implementation.
In many organizations. improved communication” is cited as a sought-after end, but it S
often set forth without identification of the means by which to achieve it. With this project.
EPA addressed the means by asking the “experts TM --those people at the regional, state
and local levels who have to ensure that the regulations are implemented--where
communication has faltered and what is needed to address the problem. It will be the
continued involvement of these people in working on solutions that will ensure successful
achievement of the end.
26
-------
PART II: DESIGNING PHASE II OF ThE STORM WATER PROGRAM
The second part of The Rensselaerville Institute project was conducted dunng April-
September 1992. It consisted of three distinct efforts: a survey of point source and
nonpoint source program experts to gain their insights on the development of a strategy
for Phase II of the storm water program; three public meetings to gain citizen advice on
key elements that should be considered for the Phase II program; and facilitation of a
“design team” effort with selected experts to generate a detailed strategy to guide EPA
in planning and implementing Phase II of the storm water program.
For each effort, the focus was on three elements: targeting (which sources shail be
included and by what categories); control (e.g., should permits be used or another
strategy developed); and timetable (with what schedule and over what period of time
should Phase II be implemented, particularly with regard to the October 1, 1992 deadline
established in the Clean Water Act amendment).
This report profiles project activities, then summarizes the findings from each of them.
The reader is referred to the supporting documentation in Volume II of this report for the
database compiled during this project, including analysis and comments from the Expert
Survey.
27
-------
Expert Survey
Part II of the project began with survey input from a select group of 32 storm water
experts from throughout the country. Five perspectives were represented:
academic/research; commercial development; consultant engineering/legal;
environmental advocacy; and state/local government. A Delphi-type survey approach
was used to obtain initial opinion and consensus on relevant issues and options for
addressing Phase II sources.
Two survey rounds were conducted with point source program experts. The instruments
presented respondents with a series of potential targeting and control strategies along
with timing options. Survey participants were asked to identify the strengths and
weaknesses as well as steps and resources needed to implement each option and were
also given the chance to suggest an alternative strategy to the ones presented.
Five nonpoint program experts received one survey designed to capture more specific
information on voluntary approaches for achieving program success. They were asked
to provide the same level of detail for their preferred strategy as point source experts.
Please see Volume U of this report for survey transcripts and analyses.
Survey Findings
Respondents were asked to identify, from a list of 18 potential sources, which sources
they felt to be the top five that “must be” regulated in Phase II. In descending order with
frequency of response in parentheses, the sources identified were:
1. “Some industrial actMties not covered under Phase I because of anomalies in the
SIC codes.” (24)
2. “Suburban areas of large metro areas outside city boundanes.” (20)
3. “Some commercial activities with industrial components.” (18)
4. “Large retail complexes.” (15)
5. “State highway systems.” (13)
The themes that characterized the designation of these sources as the top five included:
1) contribution to pollution load; 2) risk posed; 3) administrative efficiency of control; and
4) cost-effectiveness of control.
Respondents were presented with specific strategies for targeting and controlling Phase
II storm water sources. They were asked to assign a level of desirability and feasibility
to each. The scale used ranged from j. (least desirable, least feasible) to I (most
28
-------
desirable, most feasible).
The three targeting strategies, and ratings and comments they received, are listed below.
Responses to Strategy I were spread across the scale; 39% of respondents felt it was
“very desirable” and 36% rated it “not desirable”. The same response pattern was given
to feasibility: 21% rated it highly feasible while 29% rated it not feasible. That strategy
was:
Strategy I: uEIlmInate Phase ii as a separate part of the storm water program and
expand the current designation authority under Section 402 (p)(2)(e).u*
* 402(p)(2)(e): A discharge for which the Administrator or the State, as the
case may be, determines that the storm water discharge contributes to a
violation of a water quality standard or Is a significant contributor of
pollutants to waters of the United States.
Some of the comments made by experts regarding this strategy included:
• “Gives the Administrator too much authority.”
• “This approach provides the greatest flexibility and provides time so that we
can learn from current programs.”
• “Not feasible.. .unfortunately, the science is often not good enough to
pinpoint culprits; the database... is weak; it is difficult to single out one of
many candidate polluters.”
• “Mows resources to be focused strictly on problem sources from the Phase
II universe.”
• “Arbitrary and capricious interpretation of intent of Congress.”
• ‘Very desirable and feasible. It makes sense to target programs to areas
that contribute to water quality standard violations and are significant
contributors of pollutants.”
Responses to Strategy I were the most mixed. While some saw it desirable because
sources covered would be more selective and limited and therefore the program would
require less resources and administration to implement, others did not support it because
they were unsure what criteria would be used for targeting sources, and were concerned
about the types of information used in decision-making as well as the experience of those
making the decisions.
29
-------
Most respondents felt that Strategy II would be costly, complex and unwieldy, anu
resemble Phase I in terms of its drain on resources and manpower. Some respondents
felt it would expand the number of groups opposing storm water regulations.
Strategy II: uCover all remaining point source storm water discharges under existing
Phase I requ lrements
This strategy received a mean rating for desirability of 2.25 and a mean rating of feasibility
of 2A .
Some of the comments regarding this strategy included:
• “Inadequate resources would pose a major implementation problem.”
• “ill advised and will be increasingly costly. There is no need to promulgate
new regulations that we know will not be enforced.”
• ‘Would be an administrative nightmare.”
• “Too broad with respect to potentiai benefits.”
Strategy III was seen by a majority of respondents to be the most equitable and rationa
of the three choices, as well as the most scientifically based. Concern that politicai
pressures might sway the development of targeting criteria was expressed by some
respondents. That strategy is:
Strategy II I: AppIy Phase II controls selectively (e.g. on the basis of such factors
as population density, pollutant loadings, or geographic targeting, or others you
find to be approprlate).
This strategy received a mean rating for desirability of 4.64 and a mean rating of feasibility
of It was rated the most desirable and feasible of the three suggested strategies.
Some expert comments on this strategy were:
• “Best of all worlds - reasonably objective.”
• “Strategy Ill is the most desirable of the three strategies because it
maximizes efficiency, effectiveness, and the flexibility to address water
pollution problems based on site-specific factors, especially risk.”
• “Sound on a technical basis, but probably requires too many resources,
particularly information needed to do intelligent targeting.”
30
-------
“Desirable - this focuses scarce resources on likely and easily identifiable
problem areas. Feasible - the factors (e.g. population density) are easily
identifiable.
In the second round of surveys, respondents were asked to recommend a fourth strategy
if they did not support one of the three suggested by EPA. Most frequently mentioned
was a strategy that was a combination of Strategies I and Ill.
Four control strategies were presented to respondents for similar ratings of desirability
and feasibility. These strategies were:
1. Mandatory reliance on general permlts.
2. UDirect regulation under a national Phase II guideline, which may well
require a national rulemaking by EPA.
3. “Requiring direct regulation of Phase II municipalities under 100,000
and requiring them to develop necessary controls for priority sources
discharging into the municipal storm water system.
4. Controi under the nonpolnt source program authorized under Section
319 of the Clean Water Act.”
Desirability ratings for the first three strategies were approximately the same: respondents
felt that they were “somewhat” desirable. The fourth strategy was rated as slightly less
desirable. The greatest feasibility was assigned to Strategy 1. The least feasible strategy,
in the respondents’ opinions, was Strategy 4.
In the second survey round, respondents were asked to describe implementation of their
preferred strategy. When asked what minimum control strategies they would use, the
following methods were mentioned:
• a menu or roster of BMPs from which could be selected the most
appropriate approaches for the industry or watershed;
• public education;
• erosion and sediment control methods;
• “good housekeeping” and source reduction/elimination methods;
• establishment of national minimum standards;
• elimination of illicit connections;
31
-------
emphasis on pollution prevention.
Few respondents saw the implementation of Phase II to be a short-term process. Most
suggested a phase-in approach over a period of five to ten years. During this time, BMPs
could be tested for effectiveness and cost-benefit in terms of reducing and eliminating
storm water pollutant problems, and programs could establish solid components of
education, training and technical assistance.
Nonpoint Source Pes pectlves
Nonpoint program experts also favored Strategy Ill: “Apply Phase II controls selectively...”
for targeting Phase II sources, with a mean rating of 4 . Q on Desirability. The ratings
ranged, however, from “1” (not desirable) to “6” (very desirable). Some of the comments
included:
• uls inequitable. Establishes economic hardships for those required to
participate. Only strength is less administrative burden.”
• ‘Would be easy to identify sources that fall under criteria. Could be
preventive since you are not waiting for a problem to hapPen.”
• “Excellent in theory, but would require a lot of data for prioritization. an
would create confusion for some period of time.”
The survey instrument used f or nonpoint program experts was a modified version of the
point source expert survey that included a fourth EPA-suggested targeting strategy for
consideration. It was:
Strategy IV: “Target and address problems and significant storm water sources and
pollutant loadings by using SectIon 319 and CZARA programs.”
Respondents’ mean ratings of the strategy were for desirability and 2. for feasibility.
Comments included:
• “These programs lack real regulatory teeth. CZARA 6217 applies only to
coastal regions. They just aren’t aggressive enough.”
• “Section 319 is broader than NPDES and has more technical experience
with BMPs. CZARA 6217 results in specification by EPA of management
measures, in effect setting standards and providing impetus to explore
alternatives.”
• “Since only limited 319 funds are available, it would be difficult to get
done.”
32
-------
• “This is an important piece of a multifaceted approach, but not adequate
alone.”
Respondents were given the same control strategies for consideration as the point source
program experts. Of the four, #3: “Requiring direct regulation of Phase II municipalities
under 100,000...” was most favored, with a mean rating of for desirability and 3 for
feasibility. This control strategy was the only one to receive ratings higher than for
either desirability or feasibility.
The majority of respondents were opposed to extending the October 1, 1992 deadline.
The reasons given included:
• “The longer we wait to address the problem, the more costly, less
technically capable and less environmentally effective the solution will be.
There are more opportunities today, especially in less populated areas, than
tomorrow to solve and prevent problems.”
• “Storm water-related use impairment is a serious problem. Currently, there
is little being done to remediate existing problems and no assurance that
problems related to new development will be prevented. It is clear that the
voluntary approach is not adequate.”
• “Things aren’t getting better. Forum and impetus are already in place -
capitalize on it.”
Many of the recommendations made by point source program experts for targeting and
controlling storm water sources were echoed by nonpoint survey respondents. Some of
the targeting similarities include:
• selection of Strategy Ill: “Apply Phase I I controls selectively...” as the most
desirable of EPA-suggested strategies. The most mentioned reasons for
preference were ease of identifying targeted sources, and the more efficient
use of resources;
• target by watershed impairment/threat severity;
• conduct pilot projects first, evaluate, and then develop and implement a
strategy;
• develop minimum national guidelines, and leave selection of sites and
methods to state discretion;
• initiate a focused dialogue with key stakeholders (for both targeting and
controls).
33
-------
Some of the similarities in preferred control strategies included:
• build a BMP menu that can be used to implement and verify progress; allow
selection of most appropriate BMPs based on industry and watershed;
• provide public education on need for storm water control;
• provide national criteria with flexibility for local implementation of most
appropriate controls;
• develop baseline control standards for all new development.
One primary difference between point and nonpoint respondents was the application of
the “stick” by EPA, with the “stick” being the requirement of permits for those sources that
did not achieve significant movement toward program goals via voluntary efforts within
a reasonable timeframe. As one nonpoint respondent phrased it, EPA should keep permit
requirements as the “gorilla in the closet” to be used as needed when voluntary efforts
were not adequate for the problem.
A number of nonpoint respondents indicated that the 319 and CZARA 6217 programs do
not have the “teeth” they need to ensure compliance. Most feel that a combination of
programs is needed for successful achievement of water quality goals.
EPA STORM WATER PUBLIC MEETINGS
Description of the Meeting Format
Three public meetings were conducted to gain citizen suggestions on options for targeting
and controlling Phase II sources. These meetings were held in Denver, 00; San
Francisco, CA; and Washington, DC. Approximately 200 people attended the three
meetings.
At each meeting, three experts selected from the survey process presented their ideas
on a regulating strategy for the moratorium sources. Following their presentations,
attendees were divided into small task teams with an assigned facilitator, and given the
charge of devising their own strategies for targeting and controlling Phase II sources. The
strategy template provided to guide group consideration of key issues is presented below.
During the latter half of the meeting, each task team presented their option to the other
attendees for discussion.
Teams were asked to consider these issues:
1. Targeting (What light industrial, commercial, retail, residential, or
other areas or other areas do you include in Phase Il?)
34
-------
2. Control (Do you use continued reliance on the existing NPDES
permitting process or something else such as nonpoint source
programs, selected permitting based on risk, geographic targeting,
etc.?)
3. (How would you phase in the major components of the
strategy and over what timeframe? Do you suggest full
implementation on October 1, 1992 [ as stated in CWA] or do you
recommend a different set of deadlines and why’?)
4. Key steps to implement (Please indicate up to five critical, major
steps to take in implementing your strategy and the timetable for
each.)
5. How will costs of your strategy be distributed over key players and
how will costs be understood and controlled?
6. What measures of performance will you use and how will you verify
the environmental results? (Do you rely on numerical measures and
quantitative pollution indices or other factors?)
7. Strategy Strengths (Name four key strengths of your strategy which,
in your judgement, make it preferable over alternative strategies.)
8. Strategy Vulnerabilities (Name four most critical points at which your
strategy is most vulnerable to failure or shortfall in implementation.)
9. For whatever strategy is chosen, what could EPA do to make the
decision-making process for Phase II more responsive?
Meeting Findings :
A total of sixteen task teams presented their strategies for Phase II of the storm water
program. The indMduai task team strategy outlines offered a diversity of approaches for
designing, implementing, monitoring, and funding Phase II of the storm water program.
lndMdual strategies presented a large range of methods for targeting and controlling
sources, and many different timeframes over which the program could be phased in.
Despite the different representations, experiences and expertise, there were points of
congruence between many of the proposed strategies. Common strategy characteristics
across task teams included the following:
35
-------
TargetIng:
a. Targeting should be done by watershed. Information gathered from Phase
I should help identify sensitive watersheds. May require intergovernmental
agreements.
b. The focus should be on bad actorsN, i.e. those that are known problem
sources. The ones most frequently identified were: gas/auto service
industries, transportation, highway systems, land development and
agncultural sources. There needs to be the ability for facilities not
contributing impairment of water to gain an exemption from permits, fees,
implementation of BMPs. Categories are an ineffective way to designate
covered sources. Selection should be done by the degree of risk a given
facility poses rather than categorical inclusion.
c. Small municipalities should have a much simpler application process, or
have the opportunity to be excluded if they do not contribute to the pollution
problem. In addition to impact on a watershed, proximity to larger
municipalities should be considered as well.
d. EPA should defer on selecting targeted sources until the agency ha
carefully looked at the data gathered during Phase I. Numerous source
of information are available which would help determine targeting priorities,
e.g. information gathered through 305b reports, information from Phase I
program sources, NURP.
2. Conbols:
a. If a permitting process is to be continued for point sources, NPDES general
permits should be used, and focus should be on BMPs. Permits should be
simpler, and much less costly. EPA should make clearer to the applicant
what information is required, e.g. checklist of inclusions, menu of BMPs.
Exemptions should be available for non -contributors.
b. Education should be a primary form of control. It is important at all levels
and for all audiences, yet is often overlooked or underrated.
c. There should be more emphasis on voluntary programs, e.g. the 319”
nonpoint source program. For facilities with contact with storm water, there
should be little or no more government intervention, but rather emphasis on
pollution prevention incentives, BMPs, and practical measures of pollution
prevention.
Pollution prevention programs should be emphasized, particularly with new
36
-------
development. Some suggested prevention methods include: recycling storm
water, good housekeeping practices, plantings to minimize runoff, street
sweeping of work areas on a daily basis, storm water collection methods,
coverage of storage areas, changing manufactunng processes to minimize
pollutants, improvement of air emissions.
d. BMPs should be required based upon the specific pollutant problem and
strategies known to be effective in its mitigation or elimination. The focus
must be a known connection between solution and its effect on the
problem. BMPs must also recognize financial constraints, providing actions
that are relatively higher in terms of cost-effectiveness.
3. TImetable:
a. A minimum of two years is needed to prepare for Phase I I, with at least a
year dedicated to looking at data gained from Phase I of the storm water
program. Effectiveness of presently used BMPs needs to be looked at to
determine differences in effectiveness between geographic locations and
pollutants.
b. Whatever the period established for phase-in, it should not begin until
promulgation of the regulations.
4. Role of EPA Headquarters.
a. Research, information dissemination, technical assistance.
EPA should alsc p ,ide focus within these areas. Also, the current efforts
are too diffuse, and imply a complexity that makes applications seem
difficult and formidable.
b. Funding, not for program implementation, but for research.
Two areas of research requested are water basin pollution control and
determination of effectiveness of BMPs. The majority of participants
recognize that EPA does not have the fiscal resources to fund programs.
What they want from EPA is guidance in establishing fund raising
mechanisms, such as storm water utilities.
c. Establishing broad guidelines for the program within which local flexibility is
allowed and encouraged.
Flexibility, at the same time, does not provide an excuse for inaction or
postponement. Rather, it recognizes that different actions and action
sequences are appropriate to different contexts and conditions.
d. Responsibility for training regulators in the storm water program.
37
-------
Until those administering the program are well equipped to enable action;
effective responses will be difficult.
Please see Volume II of this report for copies of the indMdual strategies developed at
each of the public meetings.
Reflections on Meeting Format
A presumption shared by EPA and the contractor, The Rensselaerville Institute, was that
the conventional format for public hearings and meetings is of limited value in engaging
citizens or of making the critical transition from criticism to advice on how best to do
things. Given this belief, a different format was devised that proved quite different from
the typical approach of lectures by experts and/or testimonies read to the record by
concerned citizens.
In the interactive approach used, participants were advised that they would be asked to
form into task teams to first listen to experts offer their insights, then to develop, as a
team, a preferred strategy for responding to Phase II of the storm water program. Each
team comprised a cross-section of those attending--including where there are possible
strong environmental, industrial, and locaJ government perspectives.
In all three meetings, participants accepted the format and energetically engaged in thi
task of constructing a preferred solution. This included the session held in Washington,
D.C. where participants from major interest groups were in the habit of providing critical
feedback and criticism more than engaging in a positive design process.
To gauge participant responses to the different public meeting format, a mail-back
questionnaire was used inviting comments by the some two hundred participants in the
three public meetings. Approximately 35% of those attending completed the survey.
They were first asked to comment on their assessment of the more traditional public
hearing format. Most held a clear and consistent view of the traditional approach as
focusing primarily on prepared statements. Where dialogue was included, it was seen as
argumentative and contentious. The general conclusions:
• opinions are solicited for the record and to insure the perception of public
participation but not to provide genuine input. The sense is not of active
government listening.
• primary participants are those with strong convictions and often special
interests; they are not a representative sampling of public opinion and tend
to run the gamut of extreme perspectives on a given issue.
• sessions tend to become adversarial or at best argumentative. Ne
mechanism for cooperation is available and differences tend to ga
38
-------
magnified, not resolved.
• the focus is on the problem much more than on ideas for resoMng it. On
the one hand this attracts critics more than implementors. On the other, it
provides little guidance to people who full well know the problem and are
looking for ways to deal with it.
Participants were much more positive about the format used. Among the sentiments
voiced:
Participants had a full chance to participate--not only to be heard but to be
directly engaged in finding solutions.
“It was a valuable way to address the drafting of regulations--allowing the
regulated community to feel part of the process”;
“Encouraged the regulated community to get involved and feel involved”;
“Participants felt that EPA was actually listening and diaJoguing.”
2. The process was genuinely two-way, allowing both EPA staff and those
effected to better understand each other.
“It made you appreciate the USEPA’s tough job of satisfying the concerns
of many people while protecting the environment”;
“Felt it draws out better data”;
“Actually got to g çt one on one with industry and government and
consultant representatives. Obtained a better point of view of government’s
problems and felt that government representatives also obtained a better
point of view of industry’s problems.”
3. The format created an atmosphere for cooperation and even for
collaboration among people with very different viewpoints.
“The meeting went a long way towards promoting the creative thinking,
open discussion, and presentation of ideas”;
“Group discussion is a fine vehicle to provide input as well as learning tool.
It forces you to think through participation, rather than just simply sitting and
trying to absorb by osmosis.”;
39
-------
“Small diverse groups aiiowed ideas to be evaluated fairly and fostei —
“brainstorming” and allowed ideas to be developed to better fit broad based
objectives”
The positive elements of the meeting extended beyond the effective communication of
opinion and position to EPA to broader understandings of issues, complexities, and
solutions. Indeed, the sessions seemed as influential in creating new insights as in
communicating old ones.
Respondents suggested two pnmary ways to improve the format for future uses. The first
is the need for more detailed advance preparation--in part, needed to change the mind-
set and expectations which people tend to have for a traditional public hearing or
meeting. The second suggestion: minimize expert presentations, even when used in the
“pump-pnming” mode employed in this session. Trust the process and get right to the
participants.
When asked if they would advise the EPA to use this kind of interactive task-focussed
approach with other meetings designed to get public input, over 90% said “Yes.” Two
persons indicated that it depends on the issue and only two indicated that they preferred
to remain more passive.
ThE DESIGN TEAM” MEETING
Meeting Description :
A meeting of seven point and non-point storm water program experts, all of whom were
survey respondents, and selected EPA staff was convened in Washington, D.C. on
September 17-18, 1992. The purpose was to gain the experts’ insights on development
of Phase II storm water regulations, and the intended outcome was to build a strategy,
or multiple strategies, for regulating Phase II sources.
Participants included:
Mr. Gaii Boyd
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Portland, Oregon
Ms. Diane Cameron
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Dennis Dreher
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Mr. Tom Mumley
San Francisco Bay Regionai Water Quality Control Board
40
-------
Mr. Earl Shaver
State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Ms. Coleen Sullins
State of North Carolina DMsion of Environmental Management
The participants selected were deemed, by their peers nationwide and EPA, insightful and
highly articulate exponents of all major viewpoints on the storm water program.
Also in attendance were these key people from U.S. EPA:
Mr. Michael Cook, Director
U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Mr. Geoffrey Grubbs, Director
Assessment and Watershed Protection Div.
U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Mr. James Home, Special Assistant to the Director
U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Mr. Ephraim King, Chief
NPDES Program Branch, Permits Div.
U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Mr. Jack Lehman, Deputy Director
U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Session Findings :
1. Development of a ten-point outline describing a potential strategy for Phase II of
the storm water program.
Consistent with the overall purpose of the meeting, participants identified ten core
elements that they feel constitute a potential strategy for Phase II of the storm water
program. These elements are:
A. Objective : To get certain BMPs, ordinances and education programs into
place over a 10-15 year period. Progress would be measured by getting
these elements into place, with direction toward water quality standards and
beneficial uses over a longer period of time. EPA would work with all states
to help them develop Phase II programs.
41
-------
B. E!jQritis: EPA would set these. They would include: the sources listed by
the group, using a watershed approach where feasible, focusing first
those local governments with the size and capability to get going.
C. Education/outreach/technical assistance : these are all critical components
of a successful program.
E. Mandatory Interim Milestones : EPA needs to determine Lntenm milestones
state programs need to meet which would show they are on track.
F. Financial Plan : states/local governments need to develop plans for financing
the program.
G. Guidance : guidance is needed on BMPs and local ordinances. These
would be generated at the federal level, and states could adapt/modify as
needed.
H. “ Default” system : local governments would take the lead with their
programs, but there would be a built-in default system where the states or
EPA would take over with more stringent controls if the locals fail to meet
requirements.
I. Permit issuance : for high priority categories, could issue permits that alloy-
flexibility or some alternative mechanism at state’s option. Permits might bE
just for high priority categories; would include site design performancE
standards.
J. Phasing : there would be a schedule for issuing permits to key
municipalities: high priority to low (e.g. coordinate by watershed); high
flexibility to “getting tough” with recalcitrant localities. These would be based
on inspections, on-site reviews.
K. Monitoring : this would be the difficult part of the program because of cost.
Need is to be able to design something useful. The system might be “tiered”
- highest to lowest priority; or “strategic” - focused only on gathering what
we realty need to know.
2. Sources to be targeted in Phase II.
The participants identified a number of specific unregulated pollutant sources that need
to be targeted in Phase II of the storm water program. An approach recommended by
some of the participants for controlling these sources is a “whole basin approach”, which
would focus attention and resources on actMties impacting the water quality of a given
watershed.
42
-------
The group identified approximately 40 pollutant sources that they believe need to be
included in Phase It of the storm water program. The sources identified include the
following:
New Development/Redevelopment (commercial and residential)
Transportation Corridors
Dense Existing Development (commercial and residential)
Automotive Services
Federal facilities/military facilities
Feedlots (including dairy)
Failing septic systems
All incorporated places with less than 100,000
Non-urbanized watersheds yet to be determined
Parts of watersheds where land use is in a state of flux
Dry cleaning shops
Parking lots
Some forest operations
Nurseries/orchards
Recreational areas (e.g., stadiums, golf courses)
Landfills
Office parks
Grain elevators
Concrete cutting sites
Commercial pesticides
Landscaping industry
Car washes
Mobile washing units
Equipment maintenance
Boat yards
Tank farms
Shopping malls
Restaurants
Airports
Janitorial services
On-site solid waste (collection, hauling, transfer stations)
Atmospheric deposition
Cemeteries
Commercial strips
Wood stoves
Marine ports
Animal waste
Warehouses/storage facilities
Exterior building maintenance
Bridge maintenance
43
-------
Members of the group suggested that rather than use the Phase 1 approach of including
sources by category into the regulations, regulatory staff time and resources should be
allocated on a water basin approach , i.e., target a watershed, identify impacting activities
and their location within the watershed, and determine a set of criteria to deal with the
problems impairing the watershed. This would allow limited resources to have maximum
impact.
3. Source priorities.
After listing the range of sources that they felt should be included in the Phase It program,
participants voted for what they considered to be the top priority sources, i.e. those
sources that EPA should address immediately and diligently. The top sources selected
are listed below, in order of decreasing number of votes received. All sources were
selected by at least 50% of the participants. The sources identified as top priority for
addressing in this order:
A. New Development/Redevelopment (commercial and residential)
B. Transportation Corridors
C. Dense Existing Development (commercial and residential)
D. Automotive Services
E. Federal facilities/military facilities
F. Feedlots (including dairy)
G. Failing septic systems
4. Lessons from a case study.
One participant presented an outline of the basic components of the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management program. The program is a multifaceted approach toward the
achievement of improved water quality which heavily emphasizes voluntary measures in
its implementation strategy.
The program includes minimum BMP standards for all jurisdictions with additional water
quality treatment BMPs, guidance and requirements for higher risk storm water
dischargers. Key facets include: vigorous technical assistance, education, state financial
support, education and support for storm water utility development, highway runoff
regulations, a full nonpoint watershed management program, storm water operation and
maintenance requirements, source controls, and local control and flexibility.
44
-------
The program is being phased in over several years. It is a combination of mandatory
requirements, technical guidance and voluntary compliance. There are specialized focus
areas, such as shellfish protection districts and conservation districts. There is a
coordination effort with indMdual and general permittees in the Puget Sound area.
The program views its strengths to be greater local flexibility and acceptance of
requirements, a strong sense of teamwork between all levels, better water quality resufts,
and better targeting and use of limited resources than if they were regulated by NPDES.
They view the NPDES program as the “gorilla in the closet” that can be brought to bear
if and when a source does not meet minimum standards and requirements.
5. Principles for Phase II.
Participants discussed the basic principles they believed should drive the Phase II
program at the national level. For the program to be successful, it would require that the
following pieces be put into place:
A. Require that people gather documentation of information regarding
dischargers’ actMties and accomplishments and provide outsiders with that
documentation;
B. Formally define gaps where additional information and understanding is
needed. There needs to be an incentive to close these gaps;
C. Support (with encouragement and incentives) efforts that will close these
gaps, and advance the state of the art and/or provide a technically sound
basis for the programs’ requirements;
D. Actively encourage a broad spectrum of understanding and involvement
(the general public, community leaders, service groups, environmental
groups) via educational programs and materials;
E. Strategically identify “good” guys and “bad” guys in the regulated
community;
F. Provide clear guidance regarding programmatic and physical actions that
are required/expected. Actively seek out evidence that people know what
to do, and provide technical training to be sure that people know how to do
what is required (technical transfer);
G. Require relevant/credible/useful monitoring only. Don’t waste people’s
time/money/energy running data collection programs that yield bad or
irrelevant data.
45
-------
6. State suggestions of what EPA needs to consider in developing the Pha
program.
A sub-group of participants from state regulatory agencies met, and set forth a list of
suggestions for EPA to consider in developing Phase I I. The following recommendations
were made:
A. EPA needs to provide states with the minimum program requirements they
must achieve, and then allow states flexibility on how they Will do it. The
components must include:
• requirements/BMP standards for new development
• education/technical assistance
• control requirements for illicit connections/dumping
• developing state-specific priorities
8. EPA should require states to adopt regulations that specify program
components that must be included;
C. To assure program funding, EPA needs to require that state and local
governments set up funding mechanisms, e.g. storm water utilities, porn
fees, etc.;
0. EPA needs to compile and disseminate technical information that would
support programs, e.g. set up a national or regional clearinghouse of
information on storm water plans being implemented, BMP-specific
information and materials, etc.:
E. EPA needs to compile a national BMP manual that would assist members
of the regulated community in determining and implementing appropriate
BMPs to address their storm water problems. EPA needs to recognize,
however, that BMP application will differ between regions, e.g. climatic
differences will require different approaches;
F. EPA needs to require that states develop and implement education,
technical assistance, and training programs; EPA also needs to hold the
states responsible for effectiveness of these programs, and require
permitting in the event that these measures do not work;
G. EPA needs to maintain the right to require permits in a reasonable amount
of time (e.g. 2-3 years) if a state’s program is not meeting federally
determined requirements;
H. EPA needs to determine what short and long term goals they wish the
46
-------
storm water program to achieve.
7. Identification of problem areas and needs of the regulated community in dealing
with the storm water program.
Participants were asked to identify what their “hot buttons” were, i.e. elements or
considerations that EPA might include in the Phase II program which would cause major
problems for them, or those which if not considered by EPA would create needs for the
regulated community.
The list of “hot buttons” include the following:
A. Penalizing those who have already solved their problems by requiring
permits.
B. Liability for water quality standards, sediment standards, and resource
damage clean-up in the first round.
C. Failure to provide technical transfer - permittees need to know what to do
and how to do it.
D. Failure to promulgate revised and simplified NPDES regulations that get
around the complicated approval process.
E. Possible backlash from local governments if they are held responsible for
instances of independent commercial actMty that they cannot address or
control when they don’t know about it.
F. Lack of research on BMP effectiveness from a watershed perspective.
There is inadequate federal/state money to look at BMPs because
monitoring is so expensive.
G. Possibility of EPA .% basing the program on permits (except in cases
where the state can show that it can reach goals alternatively).
H. The inherent substantial risk of tremendous backlash that would affect
people’s livelihoods, i.e. failure to try to sell the program to regulators and
public, including the NPDES permit process.
I. Prevention v. wetlands - determining how to prevent storm water problems
while protecting wetlands.
J. Not addressing the roadblocks created by the regulations themselves. The
system is so complicated, it now takes two generations for permits to get
47
-------
to goals.
K. Lack of federal monetary assistance. Some states may be reluctant to
develop adequate programs without it.
L. Not getting rid of the acronyms in the regulatory language. No one
understands what EPA is saying.
M. Concern that mainstream design is end-of-pipe treatment. This is not
prevention! CZARA is on a better track.
N. AJIowing states to cut monitoring activities first. They need to be
encouraged to not eliminate that element disproportionately from their
budget.
0. Need to figure out how to sell the program - to get through to 0MB and top
levels of state governments exactly what it is going to take to get the
program into place.
P. Not identifying funding incentives and disincentives.
0. Not gMng praise for progress.
Add ftlonal Advice
Additional suggestions for development of the Phase II program were generated by the
group during the two-day meeting. Included in those recommendations are the following:
EPA needs to revisit and revise the terminology used In the regulations.
• the problems are often with the common words, e.g. runoff, storm water,
nonpoint source, point source. EPA staff have attached certain meanings
to words that are not conveyed to the regulated community, so there is
inherent danger that people are not talking about the same thing. Words
need to have clear and referenced meanings.
• the enormous number of acronyms used by EPA creates significant
comprehension problems for regulatees. The regulations need to be written
with fewer acronyms, and all communications need to be sensitive to the
level of use.
2. EPA needs to clearly define the goals of the program.
48
-------
aft levels of feedback (focus group, survey, and meeting results) generated
during The Rensselaerville Institute project have pointed out that the
regulated community does not understand what EPA is trying to achieve
with the storm water program. Assumption of what the goal is ranges from
achievement of set water quality numerical limits to returning a water body
to its original uses.
Confusion over the goals causes confusion for regulatees in terms of selecting the tools
that need to be used to reach them. EPA needs to determine what the federal purpose
is with regard to the storm water regulations given the reality of limitations of presently
available methods and resources for preventing and treating storm water pollution.
3. CitIzen involvement can play an Important role In achieving program goals.
EPA, states and local governments need to promote citizen education and
enforcement authority.
Participants gave numerous examples of how citizens could play an active role in
implementing and monitoring pollution reduction efforts. Given the limited resources of
federal, state and local governments, voluntary citizen involvement can support successful
program outcomes, including enforcement. Education of citizens at different levels, e.g.
qualitative vs. quantitative monitoring, stream heafth vs. compliance monitoring, etc. would
be needed. Guidance manuals can be developed to guide public education.
- ..ecommendatlor
The ten summary recommendations stated at the conclusion of the Executive Summary
are here amplified to reflect the discussions and insights generated in this project. While
not all persons involved agree with each observation and recommendation, these are
advanced as having widespread support.
1. It is possible and desirable to Identify priority target areas for which there is
widespread consensus concerning their contribution to water pollution.
These areas begin with new development and redevelopment--both residential and
commercial. They also include transportation corridors, dense existing
development and automotive services. Further, the priority of these target sources
is relative to the watershed upon which they are impacting.
Strategically, approaches that focus on a small number of priorities based on
relative risk will show stronger results than one that initially targets a broad set of
sources in Phase II. Also, it much more cost-effective to identify and pursue the
“bad actors” (eg, those contributing toxicity as opposed to sediments or turbidity)
as a priority, then get to those adding incremental pollution through routine activity.
49
-------
2. EPA needs to communicate more clearly and regularly with everyone
Impacted by the storm water regulations.
The priority focus should be less on the amount of communication and more on
ff t kinds of communication. Specifically, communications should be:
more interactive--the examples of the focus groups and public
meetings used in this project are often cited as productive formats
for future citizen input;
more localized to contexts--as in more regional workshops and fewer
national ones. This means communications less inclined to reflect the
national complexity of the program and more inclined toward
addressing the specific information and guidance needs of the local
person involved in a specific and delimited way. It also means less
“canned” content and more consultative dialogue;
less laden with acronyms and technical language that confuse and
imtate many of the people who are the true “customers” of the
program, and who are required to carry out the federal mandatA
Along with this, more attention should be paid to finding a
marketing simplicities rather than complexities.
3. EPA could improve orogram effectiveness, efficiency and cost control in
Phase I I by startina smair.
The concept of regic’ ’ ‘.nd even local prototypes was advanced by many people
as a way of getting proposed new Phase II frameworks into the hands of users in
prompt fashion to build and refine based on early use. This was generally seen
as preferable to the comprehensive approach in which new programs are
developed fully and then introduced comprehensively at a point when modification
is difficult and expensive.
Related to prototypes is the case study--in which an analytical eye is turned to
current programs that demonstrate one or more strategies or best practices for
storm water implementation. An example is the Puget Sound model, with its focus
on the tangible and cost-saving values of voluntary compliance by small
businesses (a summary of this approach is contained in Volume 2).
The use of a small scale plays to the strength of regional differences as well as the
reality that an equal stress on comprehensive large programs may so paralyze
states and localities that nothing is done expeditiously.
4. SelectIvity In data collection and monitoring Is essential.
50
-------
At present, some data collection frameworks consume tremendous time and
money only to yield bad or useless data or murky or disputed conclusions. More
attention should be paid as to what constitutes “good science” and actMties that
may show the appearance of effective activity but in reality be consuming scarce
resources to no clear gain. This also relates to the adage, “what you measure is
what you will get.” While the tendency is to see monitoring and assessment as
questions of methodology, they must first be viewed as questions of substance.
What are we trying to measure and at what level of detail and accuracy?
Not all measunng and assessment need be arcane. In development projects, for
example, the use of hay bales is known to contain overflows. No great study of
cause or effect is needed. And if there is floating oil on a body of water, we can
start by verifying that it is there--a useful step even if we do not “measure” its
amount. At the same time, other kinds of assessment are meaningless without
extensive (and expensive) levels of detail and analysis.
A related point is that documentation of discharger actMty and accomplishment
is as critical as scientific study of water conditions.
5. More customer airrerentlatlon Is also needed.
At present the mind-set appears to be that one size fits all. While gMng the
appearance of equity, this concept actually creates strong inequalities. The same
programs and regulations that befit a large corporation or municipality are simply
not equitable for smaller enterprise and communities, for example. More broadly,
some specific operations within a given source category contribute significant
pollution; others contribute none. Some way to either make the initial process
much less costly or to more quickly separate out those who do not need
continuing attention must be found.
One form of general differentiation is between those who are causing a problem
by clearly inappropriate activity (the “bad actors”) and those contributing to storm
water pollution by standard and at times inadvertent practice.
6. WhIle the ultimate goal Is water quality standards, this Is very difficult to
achieve and/or to measure in the short term.
While retaining water quality standards as the ultimate goal, EPA should be
focusing on best management practices, and in particular those that reflect
preventive and non-structural solutions. An example is stronger standards and
technologies for storm water control in new residential and commercial
construction. In many instances, the correlation is clear between the management
practice and the consequences for cleaner water.
51
-------
The codification and communication of best management practices applies - -
only to those targeted and controlled but to state and local actors implementing
storm water programs. For example, a set of “carrots and sticks” known to
promote voluntary compliance is just as critical to disseminate as a new approach
to storm retention ponds in a sub-dMsion.
While BMPs are set in place, interim milestones for water quality are also critical--
and feasible--as a way of measuring progress. The transition from progress by
practice to achievement by water quality measure must begin now.
7. The most functional unft of both analysis and Intervention Is the watershed.
Most people in our samples for opinion and recommendation strongly suggested
the watershed approach--not only on the macro level (e.g., Chesapeake Bay) but
the micro-level as well. In particular, this means looking at stream quality issues
beginning at the headwaters for early contributions and alterations. Most felt that
functional differentiation of pollutant sources is not really meaningful in terms of
either regulation or effective change at the watershed level.
8. EPA’s role Is to offer technical support and direction more than program
funding or even full guidelInes for state and local Implementation. In
particular, building useful data bases and collection methodologies not only
water quality but on practices to achieve it is critical. Also key are training ai
support programs and development of effective dissemination networks. In all EF.
roles, the need is to recognize both regional differences and the need for a multi-
faceted set of strategies, tools, approaches, solutions.
Another EPA function is to focus on the connection b9tween best management
practices and long term consequences for water quality. While those who
introduce them are in the best position to refine BMP’s, they often do not have the
tools to verify a correlation (let alone a causal connection) to water quality. This is
an important EPA function.
9. A collaborative approach to developing effective solutions Is possible. The
interactive elements of this project are one reflection of the ability of those with
strikingly different perspectives (ranging from strong environmental protection to
a focus on economic development) to work cooperatively. If adversarial and
polemical dynamics can be set aside, the gains are far greater.
Collaboration must begin within EPA itself, where there is a tendency for those
focussing on permits and “harder” tools of compliance and those focusalng on
education and “softer” elements of prevention to not fully connect with each other.
In reality, there is a strong common theme from the need to see the storm water
program as a way of enabling local communities and industries to change the
behaviors to help the environment in ways that will directly benefit them as well a
52
-------
all other citizens.
10. Agriculture activities should be included more directly in the storm water
program.
In many regions, agricufture (which includes livestock as well as crops) is a
primary contributor to surface water pollution. While the present NPDES program
requires permitting of the transport of agricultural products, this brings intervention
too late. The critical first steps of agricultural actMties, e.g. soil preparation,
growing, and harvesting, must be included.
Beyond this reality is the signal sent that for whatever set of reasons, some
interests are exempt from a program in which they clearly belong.
53
-------
The Rensselaerville Institute is an independent, not-for-profit educational center
chartered in 1963 by the Board of Regents of the State of New York.
The Institute specializes in organizational and community development.
-------
ill I
I I 1
------- |