A session at the IECA conference last week in Reno brought
together some unexpected participants to talk about EPA’s proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and, specifically, the costs of implementing them. One
was Jesse Pritts of USEPA, who outlined in detail what the proposal contains and
what changes EPA might still be considering. One point he emphasized—apparently
one that’s frequently misunderstood—was that a site must meet three different
criteria to be subject to the numeric effluent limitation of 13 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTUs): first, it
must be 30 acres or more; second, it must be in an area of the country with an R
factor of 50 or greater; and third, its soil must have at least 10% clay
content. The 13-NTU limit therefore won’t apply in many areas of the country,
although other requirements in the proposal, such as the use of sediment basins,
do apply.
Potential changes he mentioned include looking at the R factor for a site
only during the rainy season, and reevaluating linear projects such as highway
projects. In addition, as written the guidelines apply to sites of 30 acres or
more, even if not all of the site is under development at once, and it’s
possible that this might be changed to apply to sites with 30 disturbed acres.
Based on information found in the
literature, Pritts said, EPA estimates the cost of a sediment basin to be 53
cents per cubic foot of storage, and annual maintenance costs to be
approximately 25% of initial construction costs. These numbers do not include
the costs of required surface outlets such as skimmers, and they do not include
the costs of other associated BMPs. EPA estimates the costs of an advanced
treatment system—which it says is likely required to achieve the 13-NTU limit in
most areas—to be 2 cents per gallon of water treated.
Another participant, Eric Berntsen of the California State Water
Resources Control Board, is one of the writers of the California construction
general permit. He discussed how the proposed guidelines will affect that state.
Two participants represented the construction industry. Cory Taylor, the
Eastern US environmental and safety manager for Beazer Homes USA, described how
the state of Georgia is handling sampling procedures under its current permit.
Robert Patterson is the director of environmental and safety compliance with
Pulte Home Corporation. He has done—and continues to work on—an extensive
analysis of how much the new guidelines might cost to implement. In his
analysis, he explained, he considered only chitosan advanced treatment systems,
as California has banned some other coagulants. His calculations also do not
include the cost of the acres of land required for sediment basins under the
proposed guidelines, nor do they include costs for removal of the basins or
disposal of the sediment, some of which may require special disposal procedures
because it contains chitosan. The bottom line: for a site with four houses per
acre, using an advanced treatment system to achieve the 13-NTU limit would cost
$13,579 per house, as opposed to $1,000 to $3,000 for conventional BMPs. He
based his calculations on an average annual rainfall of 14 inches, although he
said that the average rainfall for the states covered by the guidelines is more
like 42 inches.
Some interesting points he raised from the developers’ point of view:
* Even
with advanced treatment systems in place, traditional BMPs like silt fence will
still be necessary. Some developers are concerned that there will be
over-reliance on the advanced treatment systems and less emphasis on other BMPs.
*
Will
there be a credential program for the people who are managing the advanced
treatment systems? Although EPA has said in its guidelines that environmental
risks from materials such as chitosan are small, these substances would be much
more widely used as the guidelines are implemented. Chitosan released in high
concentrations to a water body would kill fish.
*
If
the guidelines are implemented as written, will we begin to see a trend in
29-acre developments?
*
Passing along the costs
of the guidelines to homebuyers will be difficult, especially in areas with
existing homes for sale that don’t have the added ELG cost. Some developers
might close divisions in certain areas of the country, which could impede
economic recovery in those areas.
*
Developers are already
upside down on some sites—they paid more for the land than it’s currently
worth—and the cost to meet the effluent guidelines makes reaching the break-even
point more difficult.
Patterson acknowledged that he is still refining some of the
assumptions used in arriving at these numbers—at one point he said “I wish I had
another year to work on my analysis”—such as labor costs, rainfall curves, and
other parameters.
You can find more information and
read the complete proposal here The public comment period ends February 26, so there’s still time to send EPA
your thoughts. You can submit comments at www.regulations.gov.