The Erosion Control Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Erosion Control Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Ninety-Eight Percent Gone
  2. Two Weeks to StormCon
  3. Fighting Invasive Species of Another Sort
  4. Sacrificial Filtering
  5. China Landslides
  6. No Compensation for Beachfront Owners
  7. Sand and Oil
  8. Assessing the Effects of Oil
  9. Certifiable
  10. Clues in Sediment - and Oysters
  11. Tracking the Spill
  12. Louisiana's Wetlands
  13. Nobody's Home
  14. Saving Hitchcock Woods
  15. Dredging Up the Past
  16. Landslides
  17. Extreme Measures to Stop Flooding
  18. East Coast Flooding
  19. Well Done, Fargo
  20. Urban Logging
  21. A Large-Scale DIY Project
  22. Reconfiguring the Beach
  23. A Tiny Impediment to Shoreline Revetment
  24. Tougher Laws for Hillside Development
  25. Putting It All Back
  26. Building Beaches
  27. Moving Mountains
  28. Federal Standards for Florida A Precedent
  29. We Can't Even Go Back There
  30. What to Do About the Asian Carp
  31. Take a Few Minutes to Fill Out This Survey
  32. Lines in the Sand, Again
  33. Explaining What We Do
  34. EPA Issues Final Construction Site Guidelines
  35. Solving a Water Mystery in Bangladesh
  36. El Salvador Mudslides
  37. Trouble at Smuggler's Gulch
  38. Mud Follows Fire
  39. All Downhill From Here
  40. Support for Removing Dams
  41. LID Competition
  42. Finding Promise in Sediment
  43. StormCon 2010 Call for Papers
  44. More Stringent Mining Reviews
  45. Addressing Compost Questions
  46. Im Insulted
  47. Debating the Salt Cedar Beetle
  48. Join Us at StormCon '09 in Anaheim
  49. Tapping Opportunities
  50. Deforestation
  51. The World in a Grain of Sand
  52. Green Jobs Our Jobs
  53. The Price of Perfection
  54. In Default
  55. A Year Later, It's Still Not Over
  56. Teaching Erosion Control
  57. The New Natural
  58. Recognizing Wetlands
  59. The Creek Is Closer Than You Think
  60. Sleight of Plan
  61. Fire Season Planning for What Comes Next
  62. Pulling the Plug on the Great Lakes
  63. Stimulus Money for Flood Control
  64. High-Speed Erosion
  65. StormCon Program Now Online
  66. Of Nutria and Men
  67. Energy versus the Environment
  68. Fire for Soil
  69. Biofuels vs Erosion Prevention
  70. Volunteer Labor
  71. Background Turbidity
  72. Debating the Cost of Effluent Limitations Guidelines
  73. Underwater
  74. Private Property, Public Funds
  75. All the Pages, None of the Trees
  76. Lines in the Sand
  77. Take a Look at What We've Added
  78. Cleaning Up in Tennessee
  79. Happy Holidays From Erosion Control
  80. Certification, Anyone
  81. Investing in the Infrastructure
  82. A River Runs Through It
  83. EPA's Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines Are Here
  84. Thank You, Firefighters
  85. Restoration Writ Large
  86. Between a Wall and a Hard Place
  87. Another Tool for Restoration
  88. StormCon Abstract Deadline Is Five Weeks Away
  89. A Change to Construction Permitting Not Yet, But Hold On
  90. The LEEDing Edge
  91. The Seed Dilemma
  92. An Overzealous Cleaning
  93. The State of the Infrastructure
  94. StormCon 2009 Call for Papers
  95. Effluent Guidelines for Construction Sites
  96. Assessing Risks After Gustav
  97. Where There Was Smoke, There Will Be Flooding
  98. Looking for Data on BMP Performance
  99. More Than Just the Articles
view all

EC Editor's Blog

February 24th, 2009 7:20am PST

More on the Proposed ELG

Posted By Janice Kaspersen Comments

There’s a side note to the discussion  about EPA’s proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines at the IECA conference two weeks ago in Reno. The Waterkeeper Alliance, while not participating directly in the session, provided a two-page handout listing its objections to the proposed guidelines.

Read the Discussion 

Briefly, their comments include the following:

* The proposed guidelines don’t contain post-construction standards or requirements.
* They don’t contain a standard for pollutants that aren’t covered by the category of “turbidity,” such as oil and grease or pH. In addition, flow and volume aren’t addressed.
* They contain no narrative standards that prohibit discharges of visible sediment from a construction site.
* The limit of 13 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) does not apply to enough sites—it would affect fewer than half the construction sites in the country. The Waterkeeper Alliance wants to see a numeric limit for all NPDES-regulated sites. (As the guidelines are currently written, a site must meet three criteria for the guidelines to apply: it must be 30 acres or more, it must be in an area of the country with an R factor of 50 or greater, and its soil must have at least 10% clay content.)
* Site design approaches for limiting turbidity were not evaluated.
*Sites smaller than 30 acres have no numeric effluent limit.

What do you think—are the guidelines as written too stringent to be feasible, or don’t they go far enough? You can read the complete document here, and you still have a couple of days left to submit comments to EPA here.

 

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

Be the first to tell us what you think!

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*  
 




 

Get Erosion Control E-mail Updates!

Get weekly news and updates through our Erosion Control e-mail newsletter!