1

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 1 - 75

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 1

In the Matter of:

PUBLIC HEARING:

RE: REGULATORY LISTENING SESSION

EPA New England Headquarters 5 Post Office Square Boston, Massachusetts Monday March 21, 2011 The above entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Notice at 1:05 p.m.

BEFORE: MATTHEW HOAGLAND, Moderator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 021092

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 PANELS:

Panel 1 SUSAN STUDLEIN, Deputy Director Office of Environmental Stewardship JAMES OWENS, Director Office of Site Remediation STEPHEN PERKINS, Director Office of Ecosystem Protection

Panel 2 CARL DIERKER, ESQ. Regional Counsel ROB MAXFIELD, Director Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation New England Regional Laboratory SHARON WELLS Office of Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

Panel 3 KEN MORAFF, Deputy Director Office of Ecosystem Protection PAM HILL, ESQ. Deputy Regional Counsel SAM SILVERMAN, Deputy Director Office of Ecosystem Protection3

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 SPEAKER PAGE Michael Keyworth 12 Jim Mullowney 13

Bruce Maki 16

Jane Madden 19

Valerie Nelson 22/62

Tom Walsh 25

Joe Favaloro 28 Seth Kaplan 31 Cynthia Leibman 35

Tom Gumbart 38

John Woodsmall 40 Rozalyn Frontiera 43

Tom Burke 44 Roger Frymire 46/67

Tom Balf 53

Tom Philbin 58

Todd Dresser 704

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 (1:05 p.m.) 2 MR. HOAGLAND: Welcome to our newly renovated 3McCormack Building here at Post Office Square. My name is 4 Matthew Holgren and I work in the regional office here at 5 the EPA, also known as EPA Region 1, and I work in the 6Regional Administrator's office as a regional strategic 7 planner. I'll be moderating today's listening session. 8 Joining me here are Curt Spaulding, our Regional 9Administrator for the New England office, Kate Rennihan and 10 Kelsey O'Neil, who I believe you met at the table coming in. 11And they will be here throughout today's session. Jeff 12 Mocanu is our transcriber today. And we also will have 13 three office directors in a minute. Currently, Stephen 14 Perkins is here. We're also expecting Jim Owens and Susan 15 Studlein to join us. There they are, right on cue. 16 Our office director panel will changing throughout 17 the day's hearing and I'll be explaining how that will be 18 working in a couple of minutes. 19 This listening session arises out of a recent 20 Executive Order for improving regulations and regulatory 21 review, formally known as Executive Order 13563, issued by 22 President Obama. When we're referring to the Executive 23 Order during this session, we'll mean Executive Order 13563. 24 I'm going to let Curt say a few words and then I'll provide 255

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 more in the way of background, ground rules and expectations 1 for the hearing today. And then, I will start talking and 2 we'll start listening to you. So, Curt. 3 MR. SPAULDING: Thank you, Matt. I want to thank 4 everybody for coming. Obviously, this has been put together 5 on fairly short notice, but the fact that you're here and 6 you made the effort to come in to see us and speak with us, 7 I'm very appreciative of it. 8 Executive Order 13563 calls on every federal 9 agency to consider how best to promote retrospective 10 analysis of rules that may be outmoded and ineffective, 11 insufficient, or exceed or excessively burdensome. 12 Specially, the EO calls on every agency to deliver a 13preliminary plan consistent with law and the resources and 14 regulatory priorities under which the agency will 15periodically review its existing significant regulations to 16 determine whether such regulations should be modified, 17 streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the Agency's 18 regulatory program more effective, or less burdensome in 19 affecting our mission. 20 EPA shares the President's commitment to using 21 common sense and transparency to review our regulations. 22 So, a listening session like this is the way we start this 23process of understanding how our regulations can be 24 improved. Your comments today will help in our plan 256

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 development and decision making process regarding rules that 1 should be considered for review. And, I want to say up 2 front that you are all part of a national process. Every 3 EPA region is having a similar listening session. 4 In addition to soliciting nominations for specific 5 regulations that should be reviewed, we are seeking your 6 input into ways we can make our regulatory programs more 7 effective. So, from the standpoint of just understanding 8 what doesn't work, we want to hear what you think might work 9 -- might help us work better. We want you to look at how 10 our rules could be strengthened and complimented, or even 11modernized. This isn't just about what's not working, but 12 tell us what you think would work better. 13 The Executive Order presents EPA with an 14 opportunity to improve our regulatory program in a manner 15 that ensures continued economic growth, job creation and 16 enhances the Agency's ability to accomplish its mission to 17 protect human health and safeguard the natural environment. 18 I guess the idea here is where we can find the nexus that 19will accomplish the greater good of full prosperity and 20 sustainability and economic well being, that's the hot spot 21

we want to hear most about. 22 So, again, I thank you all for coming and making 23 this part of your day. I can assure you and I'm going to be 24 very clear about this, what happens here will be submitted 257

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 over to OMB. What happens here and what I mean here, the 1 greater Agency, I think it's compiled and sifted through. 2 This Agency will send to OMB its serious thinking or serious 3 reflection on the suggestions you give us today. So, I want 4 to make sure that you know that your time is being well 5 spent. 6 I don't want to spend any more time. Our time is 7 tight. And, I have to run off to Rhode Island to Senator 8 Reed and Senate White House are holding a hearing today on 9what's happened since the flooding that occurred in Rhode 10 Island, in fact, there's common ground for this process. 11 They want to know how the federal agencies are going to do a 12 better job going forward on responding to issues like the 13 flooding that happened in Rhode Island. So, there's common 14 ground. So, I have to run out to do that or I'd stay today. 15 But, I also want to thank the fact that our office 16 directors are taking up their time to listen today and I 17 also want you to know that our deputy of many, many years 18 here at EPA, the deputy administrator, Ira Leighton. So, 19 again, you're speaking to the best within this region and 20 appreciate the fact that you've come in to spend time with 21 these folks and put forth your view. 22 The last point I want to make is, I've empowered 23 these people to ask clarifying questions. So, if there's a 24matter that we're not getting completely in what you're 258

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 saying, they will -- they will be ask -- they may be asking 1 a question or two. Again, this is not meant to in any way 2 challenge what you're saying, but it's meant to give us 3 clarification, so that the input is taken and taken forward 4 in the best way we can. Again, I thank you for your time 5 and I guess I have to run pretty quickly. So, I will be 6 looking at all of this and getting report from Matt and 7 everyone involved. Thank you very much. 8 MR. HOAGLAND: Than you Curt. Today's event is 9 intended to be an informal, non-adversarial listening 10 session providing interested parties with an opportunity to 11make comments both orally and in writing pursuant to the 12

Executive Order. There will be no cross-examination of 13 either the panel or you, the commentors, and if we do like 14 Curt just said, direct a question to you, it will be for 15 clarification purposes only. 16 The session is being recorded. The transcription 17 and any written comments that you provide will be sent to 18 our headquarters office in Washington, D.C. All comments 19will be reviewed and considered as the Agency develops a 20 retrospective plan. That plan will include an initial list 21 of regulations for review and will be available at 22 www.epa.gov/improvingregulations. We strongly encourage you 23 to provide us with written statements in addition to any 24 verbal comments made today. You can provide us -- You can 259

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 provide those comments to us here, or you can send them in 1 electronically. And, if you do go to 2 www.epa.gov/improvingregulations you will see that there are 3 several options that you take to make sure that your 4 comments are pointed in the right direction. You can share 5 your ideas by issue or impact. For example, innovation, 6 environmental justice or science. Or, you can share your 7 ideas by program area. For example, air programs, water 8 programs, pesticides. Or, you can share your ideas on 9 general category and you can use that category if you don't 10 know what other category to use. This information's also 11 spelled out in the fact sheet that we have made available at 12 the table today. 13 The public comment period will close on April 4th, 14 2011. And, I know that you didn't come in here today to 15 listen to me, but I just have a couple more things. 16 We will hold today's hearing in three one hour 17 segments. Our office directors who will be seated up front 18 will be changing about every hour. So, we'll take a short 19break between commentors at approximately 11:00 a.m. and 12 20 noon as they switch, then, we'll promptly resume. Restrooms 21 are located right outside the door on the right and on the 22 left. If that door closes for some reason, just knock and 23we'll let you in. We have a very good cafeteria located on 24

the third floor. You can take the stairs or the elevator to 2510

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 get there. And, there are also restrooms located outside 1 the entrance to the cafeteria upstairs on the third floor. 2 If an alarm sounds, please follow the exit signs. 3 It's very easy to get out from this first floor and we will 4 resume then it's safe to do so and everyone appears to be 5

back in the room. 6 I have index cards for each person who is 7 registered and expressed a desire to speak. I'm going to 8 call on commentors generally in the order in which I 9 received these cards. I may give some preference to those 10 who appear to have traveled the farthest to get here. 11 Please let Kate, or Kelsey, or me know if you have an 12 extreme time commitment and we'll do what we can to give you 13 a chance to get your comments in and get you on your way. 14 Just a couple more things. To help with today's 15 -- to make today's hearing as fluid as possible, I ask that 16before you begin your statement, please identify yourself 17 and your affiliation, if any, for the record. Please speak 18 clearly into the microphone, there are two here, for the 19 transcript. And, when you use your name or anyone else's or 20 any abbreviation, please spell them out loud for the 21 transcript. Please focus your comments on the topic of 22 improving regulations as set out in the Executive Order. 23And, please remember that this is an opportunity for you to 24 state your comments and that EPA will carefully consider 2511

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 everyone's comments after the close of the comment period. 1 This is intended to be a listening session, not a two-way 2 conversation and, so, you will not be receiving a response 3 to the comments today. 4 Finally, I ask that you limit your comments to 5 five minutes, so that as many participants as possible are 6 allowed to express their views. To assist you with this, we 7 will provide signals as time is running out and when it's 8 time to wrap up. I think Kate's got control of the timer. 9When you see this timer hit yellow, it means that you have 10 one minute left. If you are asked to stop, but have not 11 finished, I may ask that you defer the remainder of your 12 comments until each person has had an initial opportunity to 13 comment. Then, if there is time later, we will give you a 14 short opportunity to finish your comments. If you have a 15written statement, you may read it, if it can be done in 16 five minutes. If not, I ask you to summarize the statement. 17 In either case, I encourage you to submit the written 18 comments today. 19 Are there any questions on how we'll be proceeding 20 this morning? Okay. Well, then, let's begin. I'll call 21

out names based on the cards I have in the order that I 22 discussed. Michael Keyworth from Rhode Island. 23 MR. KEYWORTH: Thank you. My name's Michael 24 Keyworth and I represent the Rhode Island Marine Trade 2512

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 Association. I have been with that organization for about 1 20 years. 2 FEMALE: I don't think that microphone's working. 3 MR. KEYWORTH: Again, my name is Michael Keyworth 4

with Rhode Island Marine Trade Association and I've been 5with them for over 20 years. In general, the Rhode Island 6

Marine Trade Association and the marine industries in Rhode 7 Island have had a very good relationship with EPA, 8

communication has flowed back and forth. 9 In principle, our major concern is the -- Rhode 10 Island is one of the state's that's been delegated to 11 administer several programs, including stormwater discharge 12 and underground storage tanks and above ground storage 13 tanks. With several examples of where the staff at RIPBM is 14 not trained well enough to really articulate regulations 15 that have promulgated tend to exacerbate a confusing 16 situation. And, it would be very helpful, I think, for a 17 representative of EPA to help them in that mission. 18 A couple more quick comments. The Rhode Island 19Marine Trade Association firmly supports not going to E15 20 for gasoline as our customers and our facilities, most of 21 the engines that are in service have not been designed for 22 the higher amounts of ethanol. 23 That's about all I have. I'll be submitting some 24more formal comments within the time frame. Thank you very 2513

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 much. 1 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Keyworth. Jim 2 Mullowney. 3 MR. MULLOWNEY: Good morning. Can you hear me? 4 I'm Jim Mullowney with Cytotoxic Research Corporation. We 5 research the relationship between cytotoxic drugs and 6 children. I'll give you my card a little bit later. 7 Cytotoxic toxic drugs, cytotoxic chemicals have 8 two uses. They're used as chemical therapies and chemical 9weapons. Because they're highly regulated as chemical 10 weapons, we don't see them in the environment. But, on the 11 converse of that as chemical therapy, more specifically 12 chemotherapy, there is no regulation on it. I think that 13 stems from the EPA's hands off approach to any drug-related 14 chemical, that's taken care of by the FDA. 15 The problem is, the exposure to these drugs comes 16 from direct patient excretion. So, effectively, we have a 17 chemical that's used as a chemical weapon, that countries 18 are restricted from having access to over chemical warfare 19 treaties and it has the same CAS number as a therapy that we 20 give mostly in this area in Boston, where we'll take a 21 cyclophosamide or Doxorubicin, a chemical made by a guy in a 22 space suit because they're so dangerous, they're so 23 carcinogenic, teratogenic, which means affects future 24 generations and mutanagenic which means that mutate human 2514

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 genes. 1 While we perceive these chemicals going into 2 someone's body, we perceive that they're gone. The analogy 3 that I'd like to use is, you take a vitamin, a couple of 4 hours later, you go to the bathroom and you look into the 5 toilet, it looks like you ate your highlighter. That's the 6vitamin passing through your body. Same thing happens with 7 any sort of chemical you take. The problem arises when we 8 have 1.5 million people in the United States on these 9 therapies, where we inject them with a highly toxic material 10 and send them home. Just where you have that vitamin 11 passing through your body, you have it pass through your 12 skin, your pores, you breathe it out and it comes in through 13 your hair. They drug test people for illegal drug use by 14 testing their hair. The same thing with legal drugs. 15 This is an issue that I can see the EPA having a 16hand in the waste part of it, there is no regulation. So, I 17 think what we need to do is look at not just drugs in the 18 water but chemicals in the water. Cause most drugs don't 19have any effect at low levels and there are ones that do. 20 OSHA was nice enough to compile the list for 64 of these 21 chemicals and NIOSH, was nice enough to put a list of 22 another 160 and combined, that's 222 of these highly toxic, 23 cytotoxic chemicals that we're turning a blind eye to the 24 environmental impacts, that's well known that these 2515

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 chemicals once they pass through someone's body is still 1 chemically active. It's well know that they'll wipe out a 2 septic system. You want to know who's on chemotherapy drug 3 in your neighborhood, call the local septic hauler and 4 they're going to tell you. Where's it going to go once it's 5 in the septic system? So, it kills the bugs, the chemical's 6 still there, they're not alive, they're chemicals. They're 7 designed to mutate the human genes. If it's in your septic 8 system, it's going right back into your water supply. 9 The other issue with a lot of these cytotoxic is 10 the dose response. We think of parts per million being in 11 the environmental business as being very, very small. When 12 you go to a pharmacist, ask him if he's ever made a drug in 13 a nanogram per liter, it's a part per trillion. The analogy 14 I like to use is, if you take a trillion one dollar bills 15 and you stack it like a deck of cards, it will go from 16Boston to the middle of Ohio. When you take one of those 17 dollar bills and you inject it into a patient and 99 cents 18 of it passes through his body unaltered, that one cent from 19here to Ohio makes his hair fall out. We really should care 20 what happens to these drugs and it's something that I don't 21 see the EPA looking at and I think it's a perception that 22 because of there being a drug that it's off limits and I 23 think that's just wrong. 24 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Mullowney. We'll 2516

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 take your business card, once we have it for the record. 1 MR. MULLOWNEY: I'll submit some comments on line, 2

too. 3 MR. HOAGLAND: Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. 4 Bruce Maki. And again, if you can spell your name for us 5 and your affiliation. 6 MR. MAKI: Good morning. My name is Bruce Maki, 7 M-a-k-i, from Who Decides in Gloucester Massachusetts. And 8 what brings me up here today specifically is that recently 9

in New York Times there was an article about the EPA 10 ignoring 25 years of their own scientific evidence in favor 11 of policy decisions that contradicted their own science. 12And, I see this as a problem for the credibility of the EPA 13 and, then its continuing mission. 14 Stemming from that also, now, we have an instance, 15 this wonderful document, the Gloucester NPDES permit. Very 16pretty looking but it's all fluff. It's like a PR piece 17 with incredible spin on supposedly facts and they're not 18 accurate. What this is doing is casting the EPA in a light 19 of taking bad science and using it to make policy decisions. 20 There is no justification, scientifically, for the policy 21 decisions that the EPA is using on this NPDES. I don't need 22 to go into the detail on this, because it's on line on the 23permits from -- by the EPA. And Gloucester's response to 24 that, also. But quite briefly, one of the biggest things 2517

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 was the F1 toxicity test. You don't even have to be in high 1 school to read the results of that test, to realize that 2 it's totally worthless. 3 According to parameters used by the EPA on that 4 testing, if I fill this room with water and everybody died, 5 the logic you people would use is, you would conclude that 6water is toxic. And, that's exactly what you did on the wet 7 testing. You've taken effluent out in inaccurate 8 concentrations, put it into test tubes with different 9 temperatures, not aerated and you made some conclusions. 10When, in fact, that's -- you're using that one little text 11 in your own laboratories that you use, you use several 12 different laboratories, the results of those testings were 13 off the charts. One said it was okay; one said it was a 14 hundred times bad. So, obviously, there's a problem with 15

the test. 16 But, yet, you go ahead with that one test 17 specifically to say, this is not good in Gloucester. Two 18 communities to the left and the right of us do not get any 19measurements for total petroleum pollutants. And, yet, 20 Gloucester has to be measured. They stopped measuring 21 Gloucester's petroleum discharges about 15 years ago, ten 22 years ago, something like that, because there wasn't any. 23 So, now the EPA wants the citizens of Gloucester 24 to spend over 60 million dollars. They want a secondary 2518

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 treatment plant like the one up in Hookset that just blew 1 out those toxic disks all the way down the river, the 2 Merrimack River, all the way down to Gloucester by the way. 3 They want us to put in a plant like that and there will be 4 no improvements in the quality of the water up there, 5because the water is fine. Twenty years of scientific data 6 show that there's been no degradation to the sea life around 7 that discharge pipe, ever. They had a couple of minor 8 incidents where something went wrong mechanically with the 9 treatment plant. The treatment plant is being updated. 10And, this is why they want to go against their own 11 recommendation of the affordability in this. 12 I think if we put this -- it's going to require 13 two or three times their own recommendation of affordability 14 for the citizens of Gloucester and they kind of fluff it up 15by saying, well, this may lead to water conservation by the 16 citizens. Well, people are already worried about their 17 water and sewer bills in Gloucester, they're exceedingly 18 expensive. So, now, we want to spend 60 million dollars, 19 roughly, a thousand or 1,500 hundred dollars per family to 20 fix something that's not broken. You cannot fix the problem 21 that's not there. And what do we get? You know, where's 22 your science? Where's your science? Who's making these 23policy decisions? That's what I would like to know. Thank 24

you. 2519

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Maki. Jane Madden. 1 MS. MADDEN: Hi. Thank you everybody for having 2 us today for this listening session. My name is Jane 3Madden. I'm a vice president at Camp, Dresser & McKee, an 4 environmental engineering firm, also secretary of the 5Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship. 6 I've been in the business for about 27 years and 7 it has certainly seen a lot of good things come out of the 8 work of EPA and the programs that you have. I guess, more 9 and more I feel like I'm scratching my head wondering, 10 sometimes, what you guys are thinking. And, there's three 11 points that I'd like to make here. 12 The first is, I think the EPA is beginning to 13 alienate folks that were once your allies and that's a very 14 tenuous spot to be in, especially given today's politics. I 15 think the EPA needs to move forward on an incentivizing 16program rather than a penalizing program. And, I think the 17 EPA always needs to keep the entire environment in mind. So, 18 let me just focus on some examples of these. 19 How you guys have alienated folks. I'll speak 20 generally to the NPDES permit program because that's where 21my familiarity lies, but I think it may extend to other 22 programs that you guys are involved in. Issuing permits 23with reduced nutrient limits, specifically, I guess -- Let 24me back up. NPDES permits are issued in five year cycles, 2520

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 typically. And, I've seen a number of communities be issued 1 a permit in one permit cycle with specific limits. Then, 2 the second -- The renewal period comes along and these 3 communities or entities are issued a second more stringent 4 permit when they haven't even had time to implement the 5 improvements necessary to meet the first permit. So, that 6 just seems crazy. When somebody is moving forward, moving 7 in the right direction and, then, they get a more stringent 8 limit which would have potentially changed the improvements 9 they made five years ago, is just not right. So, either 10 think about extending the NPDES permit term, 10 years, 15 11 years, 20 years, or if somebody is in the process of making 12 improvements to achieve one permit limit, let them at least 13 finish that job, see how the river responds, before making 14 any further reductions. 15

I also see that some of the nutrient limits are 16being pushed to the limit to sort of the point of diminution 17 return where it costs an awful lot of money to achieve the 18 really, really low limits, sort of limit of technology, and 19 the improvements to the river really are inconsequential. 20And, this is, I think, similar with the CSO programs, where 21 communities do an awful lot of work to limit to minimize, 22 combine sewer overflows in their communities. They have, 23 you know, had 90 reduction of CSO's, but getting that last 24 ten percent can be oftentimes, you know, hundreds of 2521

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 millions of dollars and may be dollars not well spent. 1 I think in general, again, in terms of alienating 2 folks, you have many individuals in this community who've 3 dedicated their lives to collection systems and waste water 4 treatment plant work and they've been on the front line. 5 But, with some of these regulations that have come out 6 lately, you know, people are throwing their hands up. 7 They're ready to throw in the towel and say, you know, this 8 is too much. Can't do it. So, be cognizant of that. 9 The second issue -- Oh, gosh, I'm running out of 10 time. Moving towards an incentivizing program versus a 11 penalizing program, I guess I would take a page out of the 12 parenting handbook and you do a much better job in rewarding 13 good behavior than penalizing poor behavior. Certainly, if 14 you see poor behavior, you need to nip it in the bud 15 immediately. But, I think there could be opportunity, 16 again, speaking in the NPDES world, if communities were able 17

to achieve excellent standards that were better than what 18 their permit says, they could be incentivized with 19potentially grants or something to take the next project and 20

to achieve better limits. 21 And, then, with respect to sort of looking at the 22 whole environment, the Agency needs to be very aware of the 23 unintended consequences of the very low nutrient limits 24 because of issues with the power that you need, the 2522

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 chemicals you need, the submissions that you will generate 1 from achieving these very low limits needs to be balanced. 2 Thank you very much. I will submit my comments. 3 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you. Thank you very much. 4 Next up, Valerie Nelson. 5 MS. NELSON: Thank you very much. I'm the 6 director of the Water Alliance. Actually, I live and work 7 out of Gloucester, Massachusetts, but the Water Alliance is 8 really a national or even international alliance of multiple 9 stakeholders, engineers and academics and civic activists, 10 et cetera. And, I think we're looking at this question of 11 regulations as really a very important and very complicated 12 issue, because fundamentally, the entire model of how 13 infrastructure is built in this country has to be changed in 14 a very dramatic way. And, you see this kind of acceptance 15 for the need for paradigm shift right in EPA's own ORD water 16 review, as well an the NES report that's been accepted in 17 the water environment research foundation, IWA, the same 18 thing that's emerging is, we have to have a paradigm shift. 19 And, I think the question that EPA needs to deal 20 with from a regulatory and enforcement standpoint is your 21 regulatory approach is the biggest impediment to the kind of 22 changes that need to be made for sustainability in this 23 country of anything. And, it's a complicated matter. To 24 unravel that and create incentives to start shifting and 2523

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 transitioning to sustainability. 1 So, what is this paradigm shift? Essentially, the 2model that we do infrastructure now started in the 1800's, 3 linear, siloed, big pipe industrial kind of model. And, 4 interestingly enough, the critics of these big water and 5 sewer lines that are now all over the country, said at the 6 time there were severe problems with this. And, it's great 7 to look back. Jill Tarr (ph.) from University of 8 Pennsylvania has recorded this. They said three things that 9were the problem with the current approach the U.S. uses. 10 First of all, we not be affordable of 11 regeneration. It would cost too much to keep replacing and 12 rebuilding the infrastructure under this centralized deep 13water line treatment plan approach. Wow, has that happened. 14 Number two, they said, you're just shifting the pollutants 15 and the toxins somewhere else out of the city. The whole 16 field of extranalities now, the water commons, I think it's 17 widely understood that our infrastructure is increasingly 18 disruptive in the ecosystem. It is not doing the job that 19we expect for environmental protection in this country and 20 internationally. And, number three, they said, why would 21 you do this? You're throwing away the resources that are in 22 this sewage and, in particular, cause up to then, centuries 23 of recycling of organics and nutrients in sewage back on the 24 farm field were disrupted and these became pollutants or 2524

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 waste and not resources. 1 These three points that they made a 150 years ago, 2 I think, are coming home to roost. And, the new paradigm is 3 about reaching affordability. I do a lot of work on Cape 4 Cod, where this old approach of $60,000 a house for a 5 central system is not affordable. Number two, the 6 extranalities of climate change and the water system as a 7 whole, which I think, generally, EPA is recognizing, we need 8 to look at the water system and the whole impact of toxins, 9 for example. What are we doing with our infrastructure in 10 terms of not protecting adequately ecosystems. And, number 11 three, huge potential in the economic value of recovering 12 those resources. In British Columbia, they're finding if 13 you get the energy out of the sewer lines, or at the 14 treatment plants, you can more than pay for both energy and 15

water and waste water infrastructure. There's nutrient 16

value in there. 17 So, one could go on and on and if there's time, I 18 could certainly try to draw this out more and more. But, 19 the regulatory system was built up in accretion on an 20

infrastructure model that said centralize and silo 21 everything. The problem we have now is there's a pent up 22 demand in this country, it's being built overseas. We're 23 ten years behind. There's pent up demand in this country to 24 build integrated systems, resource recovery systems, systems 2525

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 that, by the way, create lots of green jobs. You see this 1 in Philadelphia for stormwater. The same applies in waste 2 water opportunities, et cetera. 3 Regulations are severe impediments to unleashing 4 that kind of creativity and ultimate sustainability. So, I 5 think the challenge of EPA is in how to introduce 6 innovation, how to get multiple benefits, and how to do 7 integrated system design. And, those three things, I could 8 talk about later, if there's more time. Thank you. 9 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you very much. Tom Walsh. 10 MR. WALSH: Thank you for hearing us today. I 11 would point out that I'm commenting primarily for Blackstone 12

Water Pollution Abatement District. I'm also a member of 13

Massachusetts Water Pollution Control Association and 14 Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship, in 15part, my comments also apply to them. 16 First, I'd like to say that many speakers have 17 indicated that we need more open discussion and I think that 18 that is true. I'd like to get back to a time when we were 19 really working collegially and I think it would be great to 20 be able to get in rooms without our attorneys to talk about 21 our goals and objectives and be able to work on them that 22

way. 23 In these difficult economic times, we must try to 24 be certain the water quality investments will produce 2526

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 equivalent environmental gains. To ensure this, our 1 decision should be founded on applications of sound 2 scientific assessments and cooperative watershed based 3planning that considers the full range of water management 4

needs and fiscal constraints of communities involved. This 5 is particularly true in development of nutrient criteria in 6 that regard and a novel approach to developing and 7 implementing nutrient criteria to the U.S. is badly needed. 8 Unique and complex relationships between nutrients 9 and their potential impacts on any given water body require 10 that we use new approaches to establish nutrient goals and 11 control nutrient impairments. Reduced nutrient levels are 12 not always better for aquatic ecosystems which need some 13 level of nutrients to sustain life. And, there are numerous 14 compounding factors that impact our particular organism or 15 ecosystem response. These issues are even more complex when 16 evaluating nutrient impacts on flowing waters, such as 17 rivers and streams, or on coastal areas. Understanding the 18 biology of waterways, we all want to protect -- 19Understanding that the biology of waterways that we all want 20 to protect is essential to develop essential effective 21 nutrient goals and controls. Unlike the contaminants we've 22 dealt with in the last decades, nutrients rarely 23 demonstrated bright line level below which aquatic 24 ecosystems will be protected. 2527

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 If current approaches continue to attempt to 1 define use of such bright line levels could result in 2 undesirable impacts on organisms that may thrive under 3

different conditions. Other environmental stresses 4 including sediment flows, habitat destruction, hydro 5modification resulting from dams and channelization can have 6 as much or more of an impact on the health of aquatic 7 ecosystem than nutrients. It can strongly affect how these 8 systems respond to varying nutrient loads. 9

EPA and the states should establish a clear causal 10 link between nutrient concentrations and water quality 11 impacts on the watershed before establishing a water quality 12 criterion and before imposing nutrient control requirements. 13We don't want approaches that do not account for the varying 14 ecological effects of nutrient pollution, including 15misguided criteria development efforts and the one-size fits 16 all technology fixes will result in major expenditures for 17 point and nonpoint sources with minimal or no improvement to 18 water quality for many waters. 19 And, this is true not just for dollar costs, but 20

also for resource cost and for the environmental cost that 21 come along with some of the nutrient control technologies 22 that we're required to into. Because nutrient removal 23 systems are very costly, clean water agencies should be 24 given expanded periods of time to come into compliance and 2528

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 permit term should be extended to at least 20 years, in 1 which stringent nutrient limits are imposed. 2 EPA should rethink its approach to nutrient 3 regulations to encompass the spectrum of regulated issues, 4 using and adaptive science bases watershed management 5 approach includes all stakeholders and in its aim in 6 establishing coordinated and prioritized cost effective 7 goals that have a straight benefit. 8 I'd like to also just comment quickly on sewage 9 sludge incinerator standards. EPA has chosen to regulate 10 waste water treatment plants sewage sludge incinerators 11 under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act, which covers 12 combustion of solid waste. Sewage sludge incineration 13 should be covered more appropriate under Section 112, which 14

covers emissions from waste water treatment facilities. 15 Further, EPA has promulgated sewage sludge incinerator 16 regulations under Section 503 of the Clean Water Act some 20 17 years ago and these have turned out to be very effective. 18 So, it seems more appropriate that the regulation be done 19 under Section 112. Thank you for hearing. 20 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Next is Joe 21 Favaloro. And, if you could spell your name, I would 22 appreciate that. I'm not sure I got that right. 23 MR. FAVALORO : Good morning. My name is Joe 24 Favaloro, F-a-v-a-l-o-r-o. I'm the executive director of the 2529

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Advisory Board. 1 First and foremost, I want to thank you for giving us this 2 opportunity to speak and hopefully you guys all listen to 3

some of our concerns. 4 It's not surprisingly that these are difficult 5 times we live in. Or maybe better put, challenging times we 6

all live in from EPA down to the communities that I 7 represent, the 60 communities that are part of the MWRA 8 water resource systems, the MWRA, itself. My cities and 9 towns are getting it from all directions. They have less 10 and less dollars and more and more work just from EPA they 11 deal with the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act. 12 You have SSO, CSO, stormwater which is the new -- the new 13big issue that's coming down the pike. Clean water, dirty 14 water, clean air. Each of them, unfortunately, we come 15 across as being -- as each of these different directories 16 come down as the most important priority that we must deal 17

with. 18 But, each of them must be looked at, you know, 19maybe, in a different way and that's really the point today. 20 It's not to speak on any of the specifics, but to talk about 21 the mentality, to talk about the philosophy and what needs 22 to happen as we all move forward, is that as others have 23 said today, it isn't one size that fits all. You need to 24 almost reinvent yourself. You need to look at, you know, 2530

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 dealing with solutions and approaches and problems that we 1 need to prioritize. 2 As much as everyone of us would like to do 3 everything, we can't do it. We need to prioritize which is 4 the most important, which is the best way to do it. We need 5 to look at cost benefit analysis. You can't -- You may want 6 to get to zero discharges. We may want to get to the 7 Utopian end, but you can't do that. It doesn't make 8 financial, logical sense to do it. We need to begin to 9 embrace cost benefit analysis. You need to look at your 10 communities as a partner. We're not the enemy. As others 11 have said, the role has become more adversarial than it has 12 been as partnering. 13 You need to do all of these different things. You 14 need to set those priorities. You need to do cost benefit 15 analysis. You need to do all of them. And, that way, the 16

solutions that come forward serve the environment and allow 17 communities who are really and truly hard pressed at this 18 time, to kind of work with you in cooperation. I will be 19 sending written comments and want to thank you for the time. 20 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you. And, for those of you 21 that might have come in that didn't stop at the desk, if 22 you'd like to make a comment, please see Kelsey and Kate at 23 the table and, also, I don't know, do you have any cards? 24 No? Okay. 2531

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 Next is Seth Kaplan. 1 MR. KAPLAN: Good morning. My name is Seth 2 Kaplan. I'm the vice president for Policy and Climate 3Advocacy at the Conservation Law Foundation. This is what 4 I'm supposed to say, so I'll summarize. And, with me today 5 is Cynthia Leibman, a staff attorney who works in our Boston 6 office, who focuses on water issues, who I'm really glad 7 came with me today based on prior comments and she's 8 available to answer any questions on water issues and may 9 offer come specific comments on that. 10 We appreciate the opportunity to comment and say, 11 personally, that over ten years ago I had the opportunity, 12 through our affiliate, CLF Ventures, to to work on a project 13 Excel Process, looking at opportunities to -- with a similar 14mission and we did actually work on what I believe was the 15 only successful communities project in all of EPA, regarding 16 revision of solid waste disposal regulations to allow for 17 increased deleading of homes. That's when science indicated 18 that dirt and architectural debris with lead paint could be 19 safely disposed of in dry construction demolition landfills. 20 But, I think the major lesson if you look back at the record 21 of Project Excel was, there were surprisingly few 22 regulations that could be relaxed to greater environmental 23benefit. I think looking back at that, it would be a benefit 24 to EPA looking back at the Excel experience. 2532

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 But, to get to what I'm supposed to be talking 1 about. We are truly at a critical moment in terms of 2 addressing the environmental -- the environment and 3 environmental health. And CLF wanted to take a fairly 4 affirmative message here. We're going to stress where 5progress is needed, where what the EPA is doing is doing 6 right and offer some critical comments, but mostly stressing 7

affirmative. 8 We need to understand that addressing climate 9 change in terms of the dramatic shift towards clean energy 10 resources, like renewal energy and energy efficiency and 11 away from dirty and damaging fossil fuel derived energy must 12 be a loadstar and must be a primary value. We need to 13better protect water resources from polluted stormwater 14 runoff and we need to focus on ending dead zones caused by 15 nutrient pollution. We need to protect against the very 16 direct threats to the public health and environment from 17 dangerous air pollution. 18 We need to ensure there are sustainable patterns 19 of development that foster less energy intensive and less 20 polluting transportation systems. EPA must maintain its 21 existing regulatory programs that have proven effective and 22 necessary to ensure that business and other activities in 23 our communities are carried out in a way that protects the 24 air, water and land. Very simple. 2533

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 Here are some specific recommendations. EPA must 1 take a broad view of the benefits that are generated by 2 environmental protection, including its regulatory decisions 3 and it must communicate its decisions on regulations and 4 permits in that language. Environmental protection, clean 5 energy, for example, investments in water infrastructure can 6produce tremendous economic gains and job production. The 7 public needs to have a full and free access to information 8 that enables the citizens to evaluate whether regulated 9 facilities and public agencies are in compliance with EPA 10 regulations. EPA's been moving in this direction, but it 11 needs to -- its resources need to be devoted to being 12 clearer or more transparent in providing information to the 13public. 14 EPA should continue to require monitoring and 15 sampling as a fundamental component of its permit programs, 16 look for every opportunity to do that. 17 Clear expectations need to be set for regulated 18 entities, so they can plan and manage compliance with 19 regulatory programs. This goes for not only national 20 regulation of greenhouse gas emissions now being put in 21 place. And, where general permitting and self-certification 22 is used as in the NPDES stormwater permitting program, the 23 standards for compliance must be objective and clearly 24 expressed. 2534

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 Health benefits must meet the statutory 1 requirements. Maximum achievable control technology must 2mean maximum achievable control technology. There is a need 3 for scientific integrity to be at the core of EPA decision 4making and that means grasping some nettles, for example, 5 looking at the question of biomass emissions, looked at a 6whole and avoiding very cursory decisions like regarding 7 them as blanket carbon neutral, for example. 8 And, on the water side, the hallmark must be 9performance standards that reflect the limits of technology 10 for removing nitrogen and phosphorous and are focused on 11 achieving the standards that are set forth in law. I will 12 leave the rest of the water for Cynthia there. 13 Transportation, I would just urge in terms of 14 transportation, that you look at two very key questions. 15 You look at -- In these written comments, you will see a 16 strong discussion of the role that transportation 17 infrastructure planned and paid for by the government has on 18 the design and form and shape of our communities, EPA can 19play a key role both as a regulator in terms of regulating 20 the building of transportation and the operation in terms of 21 issues like stormwater runoff. But, most importantly, as a 22 key voice in the NEPA process and ensuring that 23

environmental values are at the absolute forefront when the 24 federal government plans and when local communities and the 2535

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 federal government spend federal funds. There are further 1 written comments. Thank you very much. 2 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Cynthia 3 Leibman, also. Do you care to add to that? You're on the 4 same card, but I'll give you five minutes. 5 MS. LEIBMAN: Good morning. I'd like to build on 6what my colleague, Seth Kaplan, offered by way of 7 recommendation on water policy and permitting. CLF and our 8members urge EPA to maintain a strong national pollutant 9 discharge elimination system or NPDES program. This program 10 has brought about dramatic improvements in water waste 11 nationwide, including our own Boston Harbor, which is really 12 a prime example. In carrying out this program, EPA should 13 continue to require robust monitoring sampling, as my 14 colleague mentioned, to verify the quality of effluent that 15 is going into our waterways and the resulting condition of 16 these waterways over time, as well, to make this data and 17 information accessible to the public in real time. 18 CLF and our members strongly support EPA in moving 19 forward with guidance that will clarify the appropriate 20 scope of EPA's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. 21 EPA's approach will correct what's become a burdensome 22 regime that has hindered protection of wetlands under 23 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. And, that immeasurably 24 impacted the Agency's ability to enforce the law. 2536

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 As my colleague, Seth, mentioned, despite the 1 progress that has been achieved through the NPDES programs, 2 that the nutrient pollution continues to cause dead zones in 3waterways in New England, including Narragansett Bay, along 4 Cape Cod and Lake Champlain. And, we recommend that EPA 5 employ performance standards, that reflect the limit 6 technology for removing nitrogen and phosphorous. Polluted 7 stormwater runoff from paved surfaces is another leading 8 cause of degradation in urban and suburban areas all around 9New England, as EPA has well documented and as the National 10 academy of Science has documented. 11 This is an opportunity, stormwater treatment is, 12 to get it right, to clean up our waterways, but also 13 deploying green technology in creating green jobs. There's 14 some specific examples of green jobs as a result of 15 stormwater treatments that are actually pointed out in EPA's 16 own recent guidances on the low impact development website 17 on EPA pages. 18 As my colleague, Seth Kaplan, mentioned, since the 19 1990's we've seen that in many cases a flexibility and 20 verification of approach EPA used in its Phase 1 and Phase 2 21 stormwater program has been abused and as a result 22 compliance rates are low. We recommend clearer standards 23 and limitations and more consistent enforcement. And, in 24 particular, we recommend that EPA underscore that water 2537

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 policy standards are the driver and the bottom line for all 1 stormwater permitting. We urge EPA to include performance 2 standards based on low impact development and green 3 infrastructure technique for all NPDES stormwater permit 4 programs. We encourage EPA to establish uniform 5 requirements to control stormwater discharge from new 6 development and redevelopment. This will take advantage of 7 the time when it's most opportune to install stormwater 8 treatment and will create a level playing field for 9 development. 10 We encourage EPA to expand permitting to include 11 commercial, industrial and institutional properties that 12 contribute significant amounts of pollution into our 13waterways, so that they can assume their fair share of the 14 solution. In the municipal stormwater context, EPA does not 15 actually do cities and towns any favors by issuing 16 stormwater permits without performance standards, because as 17 you've heard, objective and clear criteria are needed in 18 order to budget and plan for compliance. Thank you. 19 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you. I think we'll come to 20 our first break. We'll give the panel up here a break. And, 21 we have three more office directors that are going to come 22 forward. Carl Dierker, Sharon Wells and Rob Maxfield. And, 23 then, we'll continue on with Tom Gumbart So, why don't we 24 just take a couple of minutes. 2538

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 1

MR. GUMBART: I'm Tom Gumbart from the Town of 2 Lincoln. G-u-m-b-a-r-t. Actually, I filled out a card when 3 I came in, because that's what I was asked to do. I didn't 4 know I was actually going to speak. 5 So, basically, we came to hear most of your 6 concern with the NPDES permitting. As a small town, I think 7 we've demonstrated that we're very committed to preservation 8 of natural resources, but -- I'm a little nervous I didn't 9 line up anything. But, I think basically we're getting 10 feedback from EPA on doing the new MS4, north coastal 11 communities permit and feeling overwhelmed with the need to 12 do work to the extent that is being portrayed. I think all 13 communities want to be doing their best to promulgate water 14 quality and I think we do that. But, being a small 15 community, it falls on -- I'm the conservation director, 16 comes to us, the DPW Department. We have no engineering 17 component to our town. And, basically, I think we do what 18 we can. We want to comply. But, it's sort of overwhelming, 19 this current climate where we're losing staffing in the 20 town. Even though we're a wealth community, that doesn't 21 translate into being a wealthy town government. 22 So, I would just urge EPA to consider how this big 23 infrastructure on NPDES permits will actually translate at 24 the local level. I think a lot of towns are going to find 2539

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 it very difficult. I think when I reviewed the comments, 1 virtually every community said the same thing, we appreciate 2 your goals, we want to work hand in hand. But, we can't do 3 some of this where it's estimated that it's going to cost, I 4 believe, at least $60 per capita. A small town like us, 5 it's going to translate to over 300,000 a year to do that 6 compliance. So, we're just not ready to implement that 7 level. So, we do what we can. 8 One of the things that is very difficult is the 9 educational component that we would really hope that 10 stormwater education would be facilitated through EPA and 11 through Mass DEP, so there's -- the burden is eased on local 12 communities. It doesn't really make sense to have, I'm not 13 sure how many in Massachusetts, but it's, I think, somewhere 14 around half the communities that have to do it, to have a 15 150, 200 towns developing their own material doesn't seem to 16make sense economically. Each town would have to spend that 17money, when there is some local avenue to get to EPA and 18 DEP to produce some of those materials would help us a lot. 19 Again, I think you hear from a lot of people who 20 want to work with you, who want to be partners, view us as 21 partners and not the enemy. I guess that's all I have to 22

say. 23 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Gumbart. For anyone 24 that may have come in that wants to speak, please fill out a 2540

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 card. Next up is John Woodsmall. 1 MR. WOODSMALL: Hi. My name is John Woodsmall. 2 I'm the town engineer for the Town of Southborough, 3Massachusetts. And, I want to speak primarily about the 4 proposed MS4 permits for Massachusetts. 5 One of the things that the town is very concerned 6 about is that as currently drafted, the permit creates 7 unrealistic goals for small towns and cities. In today's 8 budget climate, these municipalities simply don't have 9 resources available for expansion of services or new 10 operations. Citizens have little to no appetite for new 11 fees. So, a suggestion that everything should just simply 12 be paid for. Stormwater utility is going to be a very tough 13

sell. 14 The citizens just see new fees as new taxes and 15 I'm sure we all know that there is not a very good 16 environment out there for people proposing new taxes and, 17 especially for something that's for the most -- for the 18 greater public, is something that's obscure as stormwater 19 runoff and the quality of that runoff. Just by way of an 20 example, Southborough, we've estimated that it's going to 21 cost between 1.7 to 2.7 million dollars to comply with the 22 full permits over the five years due to the anti degradation 23 requirements and our proximity to the Sudbury Reservoir. 24 That takes up a large portion of the town and about half of 2541

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 our outfalls, approximately about half of a hundred outfalls 1 discharge directly into that water. 2

We don't have a million dollars now to fund 3 current town operations. We're looking at teacher layoffs. 4 For us to be able to go to the taxpaying public and stand up 5 in town meeting and say that we need to get 1.7 to 2.7 6million dollars for a stormwater utility, it's just going to 7 be laughable. And, regardless of the fiscal climate, many 8 of the proposed regulations within that draft requirement 9have -- they create data collection activities, but they 10 have no appreciable benefit to the actual environment and 11 are going to be very burdensome for these small towns and 12 cities to implement. 13 I think there's also a sense that municipalities 14 are seen as an easy target, that there's no easily 15 identifiable or powerful constituency group to advocate for 16 the municipalities against these regulations. You know, 17 there's a number of large private, commercial and 18

institutional sites within all of our cities and towns that 19 contribute just as much stormwater runoff to the state's 20 waterways that aren't being regulated by any of these 21 permits. And, I think just in terms of fairness and in 22 terms of getting a greater impact, you know, these permit 23 requirements need to be expanded from just beyond 24municipalities and put on top with everybody else. 2542

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 There's an interesting dichotomy at work here 1 between the municipalities and many of the environmental 2 groups in the state. I think you've heard consistently from 3 the draft permit process and here that towns and cities are 4 saying there's too much, too soon being done with this draft 5permit, where you're hearing the environmental groups saying 6 that there's too little and it's happening too slowly. And, 7

we understand the EPA has to balance these interests and the 8 cities and towns want to protect environment as well. We 9provide the drinking water to the public. We provide 10 recreational facilities at local ponds and beaches and 11 things like that. So, the town's got an interest in 12 protecting the environment. And, I think EPA needs to 13 listen to what the cities and towns are telling them about 14 what we can realistically do. 15 I don't know if the regulatory process allows for 16 it, but my recommendation is that EPA create a advisory 17 group of cities and towns and environmental groups, other 18 stakeholders to kind of take all this input and try to come 19 up with a fairer process that balances the competing 20 interests better. In the public sector, we heard about 21 public participation now a days and drafting projects and 22 things like that and getting communication at all stages of 23 the permit process. And, from what we've seen with this, 24 it's been EPA is mandating from on high that this is what 2543

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 we're going to do, without listening to what the people who 1 have to implement these things have to say. Thank you. 2 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Woodsmall. Next is 3 Rozalyn Frontiera. If you could spell your name, please. 4 I'm sorry. I didn't see the note that you were in a hurry. 5 MS. FRONTIERA: No, it wasn't that, Mr. Holgren. 6 Thank you. I had signed in on a different sheet. I was not 7 supposed to put it on that. Thank you. 8 I'm from -- My name is Rozalyn Frontiera from the 9 oldest seaport fishing seaport in the country. I'm here 10 with my colleague, Bruce Maki from Who Decides. We're a 11 small community organization seeking to keep water in local 12 control. We're very interested in what happens with 13privatization of common resources. So, if there are any 14municipalities here that would like to contact us, you can 15

reach us at www.whodecides.net. Our email address is 16 info@whodecides.net. 17 And, just to add to what Mr. Maki had stated, I'm 18 a layperson, but in terms of engineering or being an expert 19 in anything but being a good citizen interested in civil 20 discourse, so I'm extremely appreciative for the president 21 to offer our community and our region this opportunity here. 22And, so, if he's interested in common sense approaches, I 23would venture to say that integrity is number one on our 24 list in terms of science, good science versus policies that 2544

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 do not really meet the needs of our community and other 1

communities on the local level. There seems to be a serious 2

disconnect. 3 So, we're here to at least open the dialogue and 4 help President Obama to consider some of those common sense 5 approaches which must include at least trying to find 6 affordable, innovative solutions per community to meet each 7 individual community's needs. That's a tall order, but it's 8 a given that communities are being hammered left and right 9 and that's the least that we can do as citizens, is to 10

listen to one another and to come to some consensus and to 11 go forward with good scientific approaches that are well 12 balanced. Thank you. 13 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you. Tom Burke from the 14 Westborough Waste Water. 15 MR. BURKE: Hi. I just found out about this 16meeting last week, so didn't prepare a lot of things, but 17 I've been on the Westborough Waste Water Treatment Plant 18 Board now for a little over three years. And, we're in the 19middle of a 50 plus million dollar expansion in our plant, 20 that's required to meet the phosphorus level of .1ppm from 21

.75. 22 Just a little background on this project. When we 23 first came up with it and went out to bid in 2008, because 24 of the fact that prices were going up at the time, we had to 2545

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 go back to the drawing board and redesign it, because we 1 didn't have enough money appropriated to finish the job. 2 So, we are now -- Our permit expired on June of 2010. We 3 have an extension which the EPA has been very, very 4 cooperative in giving us an extension, because there is good 5 faith to do the job and to do it properly. 6 Now, what that brings up to the point is this, 7 here we are. We're going to get it done, hopefully, a 8 little bit before the January 2012 date. It's a 30 month 9project, once you get started. So, you don't turn these 10 things on and off very quickly. So, one of the concerns of 11myself and other Board members have is that we're also 12 talking now about maybe some new permitting that might have 13 some nitrogen levels involved. And, it might have been a 14 good thing for all of us if we had known that and known what 15 those limits were going to be in advance. I'm not saying we 16 could have done it all because the monies are tough, but at 17 least we might have been able to give consideration to that 18 point. 19 So, I'd like to kind of reinforce one of the 20 earlier speaker's views about maybe making the permitting 21 for a longer period and, you know, also looking at the 22 results of this current expansion to see what type of an 23 effect we get from what we're doing with the phosphorus. 24And, that brings up another point. There's some suggestion 2546

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 that perhaps some of the dams in the waterways that we are 1 fish dodging in 2007 have built up which also contains some 2 of the phosphorus that we're trying to get rid out of coming 3 out of the Westborough facility. 4 Again, I'd ask you to look at maybe a longer 5permit and make sure that future permits give everyone and 6 all of the taxpayers the bang for the buck in terms of 7 getting a good environmental impact for the monies that 8 we're spending. Thank you very much. 9 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Burke. I am down to 10my last card. But, we are going to hold this hearing open 11 until one o'clock. Roger Frymire did make a note to be 12 last. I did see that note. But, if you'd like to speak 13 now, we'd welcome it. If you'd like to wait until 12:55, we 14 can do that too, but I don't think you want to. I'd be 15 happy to listen to you now. 16 MR. FRYMIRE: I'll speak now. Thank you. 17 MR. HOAGLAND: Okay. 18 MR. FRYMIRE: Hopefully, I can go slightly over 19 five minutes, if there's nobody immediately behind me. I 20 estimated when I signed up originally, it would take me six 21 to ten minutes to speak. 22 MR. HOAGLAND: I think that would be fine, given 23 the situation. And, we can certainly open it again for 24 anybody else. 2547

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 MR. FRYMIRE: I appreciate all the people that are 1 here from EPA, especially listening to me. The director 2 said that you were going to be taking these comments, taking 3 them back and adjusting them so that you could send 4 suggestions on to the federal government, itself, based on 5 these comments. And, I really need that. I don't know a 6whole lot about the actual regulations, how they were 7 written, how they're applied. But I'm out in the field and 8 I've done a lot of water quality sampling for both bacteria 9 and nutrients and I've been very involved in the NPDES 10 permits for many different facilities and cities and that's 11 where most of my comments will be directed. 12 First of all, there is one thing that was said by 13 an earlier speaker about making information more publicly 14 available and accessible and I've seen great strides made in 15 this region already. I used to have to make an appointment 16

about once or twice a month to come in to the EPA offices 17 here and ask to look at files for this city, that city, this 18 permittee and spend hours and hours looking through them. 19

At least for the first incarnation of the MS4 Phase 2 20 permits, you started putting PDF versions of the annual 21 reports the cities made on your website and that saved me so 22much going to the cities to look, coming to you to look up a 23 file. They don't have everything. I would actually ask for 24 you to expand on that. Even the annual report you have on 2548

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 there now often have appendices referenced which you don't 1 put into the on-line files. So, I've had to go to, say, 2 Belmont and ask them, you know, what was in that appendix 3 you sent and can I look at it and see this nice monitoring 4

data. 5 The new permit as I read the most recent draft 6permit and commented on it, along with all the other drafts 7 that have come out recently, talks about both a annual 8 self-analysis of whether they've adhered to the terms of the 9permit. And, a lot of the annual permit -- annual report 10 I'm looking at now, really aren't much beyond a single page, 11 a single sentence saying, We believe we satisfied the terms 12 of the permit. Maybe, a few check boxes on other pages, but 13 half of them really don't have much information. But, the 14 latest draft MS4 permit I saw had a requirement not only for 15 a stormwater management plan, but also for a fairly rigorous 16 annual report. And, I'm hoping that instead of simply 17 having an annual, you know, check, yes, we fulfilled the 18 terms of the permit, that you will actually collect these 19 annual reports and put the full report on line. 20 There is a suggestion in the draft permit that the 21

cities make this information available on their websites 22 and, if so, you can simply have a web link to it. But, for 23 the cities that maybe don't have the resources to do that 24 themselves, I'd really like to see a centralized place where 2549

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 I can find all that information and save a lot of foot work 1 and carbon emissions getting here and there. 2 The real reason to make all this available is, 3 this MS4 permit and even the current one, the old one, is 4 generating a lot of data and I'm not sure -- Well, I'm sure 5 that EPA really doesn't have the personnel to review all of 6 it in detail and compare. You make efforts. You try to 7 look at a few of them to, you know, take samples and see if 8 things are happening, but there are watershed associations 9 out there, there are concerned citizens such as myself that 10 are willing to spend a lot of time reading, analyzing and, 11 essentially, checking to make sure that the permit's being 12 followed, so that we can alert you in case it's not. 13 I think you need all the public help you can get 14 of, what I do out in the field sampling and, also, in 15monitoring the paperwork. And, the more help you can give 16 us by getting more and more of this on line, the better. 17 Besides the annual reports, the one thing I'm most 18 interested in is facts, monitoring data, water quality 19monitoring data, of which a lot more is being required. If 20 the latest draft permit is actually passed, put into effect 21 as I recently saw it and that water quality data is my 22 highest interest. 23 The cities are supposed to be putting all that 24 water quality data for the previous year into their annual 2550

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 report, that's one reason I want you to get it on line. 1 But, if that's going to be analyzed to any significant 2 extent, it really needs to be in an electronic format, not 3 just a PDF document. So, for actual water quality data, I'm 4 hoping you can either have cities provide it to you and put 5 it on their website, maybe, in, you know, a simple 6 spreadsheet format, an Excel spreadsheet, or any other 7 simple spreadsheet, so that people can agglomerate the data 8 and analyze it between cities, over entire watersheds, or 9water bodies that have multiple permitees. 10 Ideally, all this water quality data would be put 11 by the city directly into EPA's water quality exchange 12 nationwide database, WQX. If the cities can't do it, if 13 they can supply to EPA in electronic form, maybe EPA can do 14 it, but if you at least put it into an electronic form. 15 There's always the possibility that third parties, watershed 16 associations, can use their accounts on WQX and upload the 17 data, making it available nationwide. It's not just useful 18 here, but in understanding stormwater and pollutants 19 nationwide. If we're collecting all this data, let's use it 20 to the fullest extent possible. 21 One thing which I really appreciate that the MWRA 22 already does is that for all of their CSO facilities, 23 they're putting all of their DMR data, true, it's just in 24 PDF form, but they're putting that all on the MWRA's 2551

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 website, so I can actually go and look up what the Cottage 1 Farm facility, two blocks away from my house, how many times 2 it's activated, what the water quality is coming out of it, 3 since they actually do water quality sampling twice a year 4

on that. 5 So, again, I don't know how to interpret this for 6 the purpose of this particular hearing and how we an make 7 the regulations better, I'm telling you things I'd like to 8 see, things I think you're doing well, right and a few 9 things wrong. And, I'm hoping that you can interpret this 10 and print at the national level in suggestions for actual 11 changes in regulations. 12 Another topic here has to do with how the 13 regulations define things such as SSO's versus CSO's versus 14 stormwater outfalls. And, why you really have to have 15 separate permitting for what's really just dirty water 16 coming out of a pipe. Most, unfortunately, in the 17metropolitan area where I work, most of the stormwater 18 outfalls I see have some amount of sewage coming out of 19 them. Some of them during rain events have so much sewage 20 coming out of them that I don't see why they're not defined 21

as CSO's. I'd like there to be a definition of a CSO. Once 22 you're passed some bacteria level, or, you know, percent 23 sewage coming out of a pipe, it should be defined as a CSO. 24And, there are some CSO's I've sampled that are actually 2552

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 bacteria wise concentration cleaner than a lot of stormwater 1 outfalls I've sampled. 2 At the same time, I'm looking down the stream, all 3 these NPDES, especially the CSO permit and the whole Boston 4 Harbor clean up, looking at -- There's actually been 5 downgrading of water quality standards. Boston Harbor was 6

redefined from a Class SB to SB sub CSO. Because under the 7 Boston Harbor clean up, it was determined that they were 8 never going to remove all of the CSO's to Boston Harbor. 9 So, while it's going to meet Class SB standards 98 percent 10 of the time, they've already downgraded it. 11 Two places there that was considered in fresh 12 water downgrading from Class B to B CSO are the Charles 13 River, right here between Boston and Cambridge, and the 14Alewife Brook and Mystic River in the Mystic River 15Watershed, where there was such a public outcry to the 16proposed downgrading of the water quality to B sub CSO, that 17 there was variant put into effect in each of those water 18 bodies. And, still, the Boston Harbor clean up doesn't 19 currently call for closing all of the CSO's there, so I'm 20 afraid in 2020 when all of the CSO projects are finally 21 finished, we're still going to be faced with downgrading the 22 water quality. But, at the same time, there has been so 23much work done and so much improvement, especially in 24 diminishing the total amount of flow coming out of these CSO 2553

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 pipes in most cases that there are -- most of the CSO's that 1 are supposed to remain in those two water bodies are going 2 to be at or less than one activation per typical year. And, 3 I'd actually like to have considered -- Yes. 4 MR. HOAGLAND: Excuse me. You're past ten 5minutes. I wanted to give you adequate time. I have two 6more cards that have come in. If you'd like to wrap up in a 7minute or so, we can do that. Or, we can let two people go 8 and, then, come back. 9 MR. FRYMIRE: I can take a break and let everyone 10 else go and, then, come back. Thank you very much. 11 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you. Tom Balf. If you could 12 spell your name, please. 13 MR. BALF: Sure. My name is Tom Balf, B-a-l-f as 14 in Frank, and I'm with a group called C2E2, which is the 15 Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence. It's a 16higher ed environmental association representing more than 17 30 colleges and universities, many of them major national 18 research universities in New England here. 19 It's important, I think, to -- Let me just give 20 background in terms of college and universities, cause that 21 will -- it's relevant to my next comments. The C2E2 was 22 involved with Region 1 in a great collaborative relationship 23 called The Academic Research Lab Project Excel. To my 24 knowledge, unless Seth Kaplan is correct, it's the only one 2554

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 -- the only Excel project pilot project that actually became 1 a final rule within the last three years and it was an 2 innovative approach to regulating management of hazardous 3waste coming out of academic laboratories. And, so, rather 4 than regulations that were developed for the Ford Motor 5 companies and Bethlehem Steels of the world, the innovative 6 regulation imposes performance based requirements and better 7 supports the research development and training environment 8 of a college/university lab. 9 It's also important to recognize colleges and 10 universities in the extraordinary environmental leadership 11 that they've shown over the last number of years. Nearly 12 700 colleges have signed the President's climate commitment 13 to be carbon neutral. Many colleges and universities have 14 extraordinary sustainability programs coming across all 15 sorts of disciplines. And, it has been my pleasure over the 16 last ten years to work with colleges and universities and 17 it's wonderful in the sense that they are transparent. They 18 are collegial and they want to do the right thing. 19 We'll be submitting specific comments, I guess, 20 electronically. We have a number of specific regulations 21 that we'd like to talk about and I'm going to mention those 22 very briefly. We would like to see an authorized use for 23 PCB's in caulk Under the TOSCA regulations, we have proposed 24 that previously on the advanced notice of proposed rule 2555

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 making. A lot of these comments came from MACUBO, the 1 business officers association, along with a caulk management 2 plan. So, it's not just that we want authorized use, we 3would inventory caulk pre 1979. We would do routine 4 inspections. We would manage it accordingly. But, 5 currently, the regulatory requirements and the 6 interpretations simply don't work. 7

We would like to see modifications to the land 8 disposal restriction requirements which don't seem to really 9provide any value any more. It's a paperwork burden. It's 10 a mechanism for sort of a I got ya, that I think you could 11 argue that the LDR program at EPA has been an extraordinary 12 success. The treatment methodologies are well implements 13 and executed. And, the sort of notification paperwork 14 requirements to some degree have outlived their useful life. 15 We would also like and we've advocated for a long 16 time on the value of a single ID for a university or a 17 college, so that the entire campus would come under one RCRA 18 identification number, rather than the more typical, which 19 is because of public roads, they're making multiple ID's. 20 It's a pain to administer and organize and, frankly, one ID 21 would more likely impose more stringent requirements on a 22 college/university, rather than being a large quantity 23 generated here, a small quantity generated there. A 24 conditional use generator somewhere else. 2556

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 We would like to see electronic versions of 1manifesting. Get away from the paperwork copies which are 2 about done its useful life and we have some specific 3 requirements regarding the inspection of tanks under the 4 SPCC regs. Where you have very large tanks that are above 5 ground tanks, you can see them. We would like to put in 6place a requirement simply for visual inspections, rather 7 than currently where they're required to do a more thorough 8 engineering evaluation. 9 I think the other thing that I would like to talk 10 about is, and this again comes from our leadership in the 11 college/university area and our specific experience under 12 the Excel. I think it's time to sort of blow up the 13 regulatory program and I guess I'm offering the 14 college/university to be a willing partner. So, as an 15 example, there's so many regulations, so many standards -- 16May I go another minute? 17 MR. HOAGLAND: Certainly. 18 MR. BALF: Okay. Is what is happening is, there's 19 conflicts from one requirement to the next, a number of 20 speakers have spoken to the resource burden that it imposes. 21 So, for example, the most inefficient building on a campus 22 where there's tremendous opportunities for energy 23 conversation, efficiency, you may not address because it may 24 open up the issue of it's built pre 1979, there may be PCB 2557

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 caulk, it's intact, there's no real exposure issue that 1 we're aware of and, yet, you don't want to open that up 2

because it could be a multi-million dollar remediation 3 expense, at what benefit. 4

New standards for NO2 under the new source 5performance standard as they're affecting at least in 6Massachusetts, emergency engines running 15 minutes a week, 7 have extraordinary costs that should be seen within the 8 context, well, what can we do at the facility level, at the 9 campus level, to minimize NO2, as opposed to this continued 10 racheting of max standards, following max standards, more 11 stringent standards following more stringent standards. 12 What I would like to propose and we would be 13 interested in pursuing is a ecosystem systemwide permit 14 approach, you know, whether it's the Holy Grail or not, so 15 that we could evaluate the environmental impacts, other 16 college/universities operations and activities and, then, 17 development management mechanisms to drive down those 18 environmental impacts in a way that most effectively 19 utilizes the resources of a college or university, as well 20 as environmental agencies. I think that -- I'm not sure 21 whether there's at this point legislative authority to do 22 that, but, again, given our experience on the Excel, we 23would be interested in finding a campus that would be 24 willing to try out that comprehensive model and see how it 2558

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 might work with a long-range plan of achieving that Holy 1 Grail. Thank you. 2 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Balf. Tom Philbin. 3 MR. PHILBIN: Hi. Thank you for having us. I'm 4 Tom Philbin from Mass. Municipal Association. I also serve 5 on the Sustainable Water Management Initiative and, also, on 6 the Water Infrastructure Compliance Commission. So, go to 7 these meetings three times a week, I think, I'm involved in 8 this. But, I just want to speak generally and, then, maybe, 9 a little bit about some specifics. 10 But, I want to compliment Stephen Perkins and the 11 crew here at EPA for listening to communities working them. 12 They have -- They're being pushed from both sides with CLF, 13 Charles River Watershed, folks in the environmental 14 community and municipalities on one side. We all have the 15 same goal, however. We all have the same goal for clean 16water for our communities, clean, safe drinking water. It's 17 how we got there that we have issues. Particularly, let me 18 just start with funding, because I know that's the big thing 19

that's out there. 20 We just had a new Congress come in, drinking 21 water's cut, waste water's cut. The funding is going down 22 and, you know, back in the '80s and the '70s communities had 23 75, 80 percent of their waste water treatment paid for by 24 the federal government, that's no longer the case. Now, you 2559

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 know, we just heard from Westborough, 50 million dollars. 1Mass. Municipal Association has had their number one issue 2 was municipal plan design, because communities are 3 struggling and they can't afford to meet their budgets. 4 That's a hundred million dollars a year. Westborough along 5 is 50 million dollars. So, the costs of these regulations 6 to communities are huge. 7 The public doesn't understand and I have to fault 8 EPA here. In your MS4 permit guidelines, you have an 9 educational requirement for DPW directors, basically, to do, 10

I think there's six educational outreach. That's 351 cities 11 and towns that are sending 351 different messages to 12 residents, schools, businesses, all about stormwater 13management. You need to come up with an easier way for 14

communities to do this. You need to have a website. You 15

need to be able to allow these communities to download 16materials that they can then personalize to their own 17 community and figure out a way to allow them to get that out 18 to members of the community. 19 These guys -- and they're engineers and they're 20 dedicated guys, but they should not be trying to come up 21 with educational materials for sixth grade curriculum on 22 stormwater. It's crazy. It's a waste of their time. And, 23 EPA should have one consistent message about stormwater, and 24 it ought to be done by professionals, not by municipal 2560

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 folks. So, that's just an easy thing to do. 1 The other thing is lab testing. You're requiring 2 now nutrient testing on stormwater. We do it on waste 3water. All these communities have to go out there and pay 4 for these tests. They can be literally thousands and 5

thousands of dollars. There should be a more efficient 6manner for EPA to be able to assist communities on testing 7 those nutrient levels coming out. 8 Other things, dam removal, you ought take a look 9 at a holistic approach here. Communities are being required 10 to in stream meet those nutrient levels. But, there's dam 11

out there -- I believe we have about a thousand dams in 12 Massachusetts that are blocking flow and building up the 13

nutrient level and those need to be looked at. 14 The other thing with the MS4 permits. We've been 15working on these for a few years now, but you have an NOI in 16 there, a notice of intent that these communities have to 17 start within 90 days. They basically said they're going to 18 fulfill everything in the permit required of them. That's 19 really difficult. You have to go to town meeting and you 20 have to meet budgets. All of a sudden, you're the DPW 21 director or the engineer and you have to sign off saying 22 you'll meet those requirements and you can't even get the 23 funding because you haven't been able to go to town meeting. 24 So, that's another one and you may have to have have a 2 1/2 2561

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 override just to get there. 1 You know, there's simple things that can be done. 2And, I'm not a scientist on this, but banning phosphorus in 3 fertilizers, there's something that's easy. It could take 4 the burden off municipalities on the nutrient levels. I 5 don't know the numbers on that, but it seems like a simple 6 thing. 7 So, like I said, the efficiencies, the budget 8 limitations and public education. 9 One more thing real quick, I know I'm almost done 10my time. But, I sat in a Chapter 90 meeting the other day 11 and this is -- this is money for just repaving streets after 12 this horrible winter we had. So, CLF testified, some other 13 folks, the goal here is to take, I believe, five percent out 14 of Chapter 90 money, which is right now just used for 15 repaving streets, to go in and to do the complete streets. 16Now, if you take a look at complete streets, they want to do 17 double sidewalks on both streets, so you can have 18 alternative access, I understand that. But, in Franklin, 19 they're actually ripping up sidewalks in order to meet the 20 stormwater permit limits. So, somebody's got to -- EPA, 21 federal designed guidelines, the Federal Highway 22Administration Authority, you guys need to work together 23with the environmental community to come up with guidelines 24 that are not juxtaposed to funding that are contradicting 2562

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 one another. You sit in these meetings and you say, okay. 1We've got to argue this or that. 2 The other requirement is, okay, we add streets on 3both sides. Now, the EPA is requiring us to sweep twice a 4 year the sidewalks. So, that was not in the last permit, 5 that's in the new permit. That's a cost. Communities don't 6 even have street sweepers that clean sidewalks. They have 7 to go purchase that equipment, using Chapter 90 money, which 8 should be used for repaving. 9 So, that's my rant. I will do written comments 10 from Mass. Municipal that will be much more concise. But, I 11 just wanted to mention those things real quick. Thank you 12 very much. 13 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Philbin. Are there 14 any other -- anyone else that cares to make a comment? We 15 have Roger on deck, too. 16 MS. NELSON: If I could come up again. 17 MR. HOAGLAND: Okay. How about we let -- Roger is 18 okay, he's deferring to you. If you could just state your 19 name, again. 20 MS. NELSON: Yes. Valerie Nelson, Water Alliance. 21 Yes. Thank you again for a little bit more time. And, I 22 just have to say that this is such a complicated question 23 that it's hard to try to capture all of it. 24 But, going back to the regulatory impediment in 2563

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 the United States, I think it's widely understood that 1 that's probably the biggest problem in the inability of this 2 country to move in the sustainability directions that other 3 countries are doing. And, in the State of the Union 4 address, President Obama talked about the challenge and 5 opportunities to the United States to out innovate. And, I 6 think it's widely understood in United States that we still 7

maintain some of the best talent in the science and 8 engineering. But, where we go, you hear that we just can't 9build this stuff in this country because of the regulations. 10 So, you have these crazy situations where MIT, for example, 11 is getting substantial amounts of money from Singapore, 12 sending faculty over there and it's just one of many, many 13 examples, to build integrated new systems and new 14 technology. 15 So, what is it going to take to out innovate in 16 the water sector in this country as the president put out 17 there for energy and health care and other systems. 18 Is the managing the innovation, the managing of 19 the risk that I think is the challenge to regulators. I 20 have to say I'm not a regulator and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm 21 kind of giving the perspective from other directions, that's 22 how I see the challenge. 23 There's a illusion that regulations and standards 24 and enforcement and money are protecting America and that is 2564

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 being very much stripped away. It's a high risk approach to 1 continue with the current ways we're doing things. Glen 2 Geiger, who is the senior vice president of CH2 and now the 3president of International Water Association, has stated so 4 boldly as to say that in the water field, it is far riskier 5 to continue doing what we're doing, than to take on the risk 6 of trying new things. George Hawkins from the DC Water and 7 Sewer Authority, he says, this whole enterprise of trying to 8 innovate is like you're in a 747 trying to change the whole 9plane in flight. It's not easy. 10 But, I would like to endorse that campus proposal. 11 I think at a minimum what regulators need to really think 12 about is, how to allow spaces to emerge in this country 13where innovation can begin to be brought into play. A 14 campus is probably an ideal place. Allow for the hallmarks 15 of this are, again, you know Philadelphia, but it's even 16 larger than that. Integrated systems. Look at water, waste 17 water, stormwater, energy, solid waste, everything, it's in 18 that integrated synergy that the break throughs are starting 19 to appear. 20 Allow for multiple benefit considerations. No 21more silo regulations. You know, we're getting here for a 22 very broad description of environmental and public health 23protection. Get those defined and allow those communities 24

to do that. 2565

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 And, finally, provide for the capability to try 1 out new technologies without penalizing the entity if they 2 don't work. It's that risk avoidance that pervades 3municipalities and permitted authorities now, where they are 4 unwilling to try these new technologies, because of the fear 5 that there'll be some sort of penalty if it doesn't work. 6 That has to go away. 7 I'd like to offer that Cape Cod is actually a 8 tremendous opportunity for creating spaces for innovation 9 and regulators have to step up and set the parameters and 10 guidelines for how that innovation can emerge, because the 11 flaws in the current approach are so obvious down there, 12 it's a siloed a conventional technology, minimal science at 13 a huge cost. 14 That is not the way of the future. How can 15 regulators allow towns where these desires are coming up to 16 take that multiple benefit, integrate its system science 17 based and innovate a technology approach. And, EPA really 18 could step in and provide a regulatory framework and Lisa 19 Jackson has actually called it science based and adaptive 20management. Your own administrator has said on the record, 21 we can't continue in water doing things the old way. How 22 does EPA propose to have a regulatory framework for a town 23 like Falmouth, where they're having meetings every week now 24 saying, we want to do pilot projects, we want to look at 2566

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 this in a different way. 1 But, how can a regulation structure their process 2 of adaptive management as Lisa Jackson has said, so that 3 over time there's a continuous learning process and new 4 technologies are streamed in to achieve more benefits. So, 5 I think that kind of pilot. You know, in education, we call 6 it a charter school. How can EPA regulators set the stage 7

for a charter district in the kind of sustainable 8 twenty-first century, out innovate, get with the program 9 that's the rest of the world is on, zero footprint, create 10 value out of waste, integrate what you're after, use solid 11 science. How can the regulators step up to the leadership 12 role and work with those communities and campuses and cities 13 like Gloucester as well, that know that they system is 14

broken. 15 And, it's a little bit like an edifice that's 16 about to fall. I mean, the money isn't there. The 17 willingness to participate isn't there. And, the results 18 are not being delivered. So, the risk, again, of continuing 19with the illusion that high standards, more money, more 20 enforcement, tight regulations, will protect this country. 21 It has to be taken away and stripped there and the core 22 question is, how to allow the development of the new vision 23which will affordably protect public health and the 24 environment by some of these new integrated resource 2567

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 recovery and other national systems, et cetera, that the 1 rest of the world is rapidly working on and developing. 2 So, that's the challenge for regulators. How do 3we bring that energy -- And, I'm convinced, if we open it 4 up, this country has the science and the technology and the 5 communities, if the regulators figure this out, to open it 6 up, this country will innovate -- out innovate the rest of 7 the world. I hope you guys think about that and provide the 8 leadership. Thank you. 9 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. 10 MR. FRYMIRE: I'll try to keep it under ten 11minutes with the rest of my comments. My name is 12 F-r-y-m-i-r-e, Roger Frymire. 13 I was speaking about SSO's, CSO's versus 14 stormwater. The one thing that I'd like to see, what I 15 think really does -- could have an effect in changing 16 regulations is, I'd like to find away to remove the 17 financial incentive to pollute. However, I don't want to go 18 fining these cash strapped cities for, you know, every time 19 they have a CSO overflow, or and SSO overflow. I don't want 20 that to be a cost to them, cause I want every bit of money 21 they have to be put into fixing the problem, just like you 22 do. But, at the moment, if you fine a city or the MWRA, 23 that money goes into the general fund, as I understand. 24 But, that means that under the current CSO 2568

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 permits, there's really still a financial incentive for 1 cities to, well, let some of that sewage go into their storm 2 drains, cause that way it doesn't go to the MWRA, they have 3 to pay for it. And, for the MWRA, over the last 12 years, 4 approximately twice a year on average, they've had sanitary 5 sewer overflows in the main MWRA system from rain events. I 6

wouldn't call those SSO's. That's much too often to be 7 called an SSO. Those are CSO's that some how got ignored in 8 the Boston Harbor clean up process and are under some 9 nebular SSO classification. But, there's no financial 10

disincentive for that. 11 I'd like to see -- There's a reporting requirement 12 and they've been very good lately about actually reporting 13 their SSO's. But, if there was some way to charge money for 14 polluting our waters and that money got directly pointed 15back towards fixing the problems that were the base causing 16 that pollution. For MWRA SSO's, that's inflow way up in the 17 system, up in Burlington and Stoneham. There's so much 18 extra stormwater getting into the separated sewers that 19before you even get down to the combined sewer areas of the 20MWRA, there's SSO's occurring. It's just not right. The 21 financial incentive to pollute in both municipal and the 22 authority level that needs to be removed. 23 Another thing that comes to my mind, I was very 24 glad to see the fellow representing the universities. I 2569

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 live near the Charles River, halfway between Harvard and MIT 1 and they both have a lot of impervious surface. They both 2 have extensive playing fields which I assume are fertilized 3 and lead to a lot of phosphorus going into the river, but 4 they don't have MS4 permits. I would like to see some way 5 for campuses in particular, or maybe anyone with large yards 6 or playing fields, once you get over five acres of flat 7mowed lawn, whether there is a football field, or a national 8monument, there should be some permitted way to control the 9 amount of phosphorus going onto that and, then, getting 10 directly, unfortunately, washed into our waterways. 11 The last comment I have here, I'm going to hit 12 under five minutes this time, is, I was very glad to see the 13ways you were able to work with the power plant next to the 14 Longfellow Bridge. I forget what their new name is. It 15 used to be Mirant, then Exelon and they're something else 16 now. But, you were able to work with them and find a way to 17 use the excess heat which has been driving all that 18 phosphorus in the river, into causing cyato bacteria blooms 19 and they're going to be recapturing a lot of that heat and 20 selling it as steam, so that buildings downtown don't have 21 to burn natural gas for their air conditioning systems. 22 That's going to be a big win all around. I just wish that 23 one of their earlier plans of using some of their hot water 24 discharge on the bottom of the river to stir the river up, 2570

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 to circulate it, I wish that could have come to pass, 1 because all the phosphorus in the bottom sediments there 2 need to be washed out into the ocean some how, instead of 3 continually being recycled into the cyato bacteria every 4 year. And, with the dead zone we have along the river in 5 the lower Charles River Basin, because there's not that 6mixing, we don't have the binals, the mussels and clams 7 which normally populate bottom sediment in a river like 8 that, and would clean it out. 9 Well, thank you very much. I hope you can 10 translate a few of my comments into regulatory suggestions. 11 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you. We're not at the end of 12 the hearing. We're going to say open till one o'clock, if 13 anybody else has anything to add. We'll keep a panel as 14 well. I guess we'll sit tight. 15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 16

MR. HOAGLAND: We're on for one comment. 17 MR. DRESSER: Can I just stand here and speak on 18my own? 19 MR. HOAGLAND: Well, no. We'd like you to use a 20microphone, so that Jeff can hear you. Todd Dresser. 21 MR. DRESSER: Hello. My name's Todd Dresser. I 22 thank you for this opportunity. After listening to the 23 comments this morning, I served as a municipal environmental 24 engineer for nearly 15 years here in Massachusetts. I've 2571

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 since had the opportunity to work with a number of 1 communities on environmental management. 2 During my time in Burlington, Massachusetts, I 3work actively with EPA's municipal groups. At that time, I 4 actually did a lot of local potassium build up. Worked 5 together on a lot of training that they did, targeting 6municipal government, promoting environmental compliance, 7 environmental management. Basically, EPA personnel at that 8 time identified a number of good programs occurring around 9 the region and helped get the word out. It was very 10 effective in promoting synergy, promoting useful, 11 productive, cost effective environmental compliance, 12 pollution prevention strategies. 13 Since leaving the public sector and going to the 14 private sector, I've realized that those same lessons still 15 need to be learned. Municipal government typically could 16 not have compliance staff on board. They don't have a very 17 strong understanding of rules and regulations, or the 18 opportunities for the inexpensive coaches and strategies 19

that exist and have been successful elsewhere. 20 I would urge EPA to consider putting together 21 annual training programs targeting municipalities, teaching 22 public groups how they can work together and assist each 23 other. An example I offer up, I have been helping the Town 24 of Hollis, New Hampshire with their stormwater program. 2572

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 Everybody talks about the cost of analysis, sample 1 collection their outfalls. We partnered with the Nashua 2 River Watershed Association. The town had been contributing 3 funds to support sampling of that program for years. 4 Basically, they just never collected the data which they 5 could then use to comply with their stormwater permit. They 6

were not aware of the connection. 7 But, these are simple things that are occurring. 8 But, I think EPA could serve as a conduit and point this out 9 and help people out. 10 There's a lot of talk about trying to work at a 11 campus or a watershed strategy. A state like Massachusetts 12 where we have 351 towns that are very proud of their 13 individuality, that's going to be a challenge. We don't 14 have a county system. But, we do have regional planning 15 organizations, MAPC, Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. 16

You have other ones across the state. You also have them 17 across New Hampshire. Those are potential partners to work 18 with. I would urge you to consider. You have Health 19 Communities Grant Program. There's one coming up right now. 20 There's one in September. That's an avenue for you to reach 21 out to the public, put together environmental boot camp 22 program, whatever you want to call it, two or three day 23 session. Give incentives for municipalities to send staff 24 to come to a two to three day training course. You do it 2573

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 for your own staff, provide it to these people. 1 I think you can get improvements in stormwater 2management, explain and highlight some of the successes that 3 have occurred in our NPDES. You go down to the 4 Mid-Atlantic, there's so much information available there. 5A lot of that could be transferred up here. You could look 6 at schools, you could look at EHS compliance at highway 7 garages. I would also look at redevelopment or development, 8 how you can use -- you can use the development process to 9 support stormwater protection, hazardous materials 10management, emergency planning. I know because I did that 11 in Burlington and it can be done, it can be accomplished. 12 But, the key is, a lot of these people don't know 13where to begin. They need some help and, yes, they're 14 running around doing a million different things, short 15 staffed, under funded. A lot of things that I was able to 16 accomplish, I did without a budget increase. And, a lot of 17 it is being made aware of information, being provided some 18 helpful tips and education. I would urge you to consider 19 that. Thank you. 20 MR. HOAGLAND: Thank you, Mr. Dresser. Are there 21 any other comments? 22 (No response.) 23 MR. HOAGLAND: I think we'll go back into recess, 24 then. If there are any further comments, we'll reconvene 2574

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 again. 1 (Whereupon, a recess was taken and the hearing was 2 concluded at 1:00 p.m.) 375

APEX Reporting (617) 269-2900 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER AND TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached proceedings

before:U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

in the Matter of:

RE: REGULATORY LISTENING SESSION

Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: March 21, 2011

were held as herein appears, and that this is the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the notes and/or recordings taken of the above entitled proceeding.

J. Mocanu 03/21/11 Reporter Date

B. Breen 03/23/11

Transcriber Date