Environmental Justice in CWA Effluent Guidelines
Post on 24-Feb-2016
49 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Environmental Justice in CWA Effluent Guidelines
Julie HewittUS EPA/Office of Water/Office of Science and TechnologySAB meeting – June 19, 2013
OutlineBrief background on effluent
guidelines (ELGs)Past approaches to EJ analyses in
ELGsExamples of specific EJ analysesThoughts on EJ analysis issues
What are Effluent Guidelines?• National technology-based regulations for controlling
industrial wastewater discharges to surface waters (direct dischargers) and sewage treatment plants (indirect dischargers).
• Many are numerical limits but specific technology not required for compliance. Limits may vary by subcategory, tailored to industrial process
• Industry-specific (e.g., pulp & paper, iron and steel). • Incorporated into facility-specific permits. Absent a
national effluent guideline, permits requirements are established on a BPJ basis (same factors as guidelines).
• Factors used in establishing national effluent guidelines• Availability of technology • Economically achievable • Non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy)• “Such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate”
Developing an Effluent Guideline
Data collection – questionnaires, plant visits, wastewater sampling
Technology assessment - wastewater characterization, technology performance, compliance costs
Regulatory analysis - economic and environmental impacts, derivation of effluent limits
Options analysis and decision Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Public Comments Revised technology assessment, analysis, and
regulatory options Final rule
Effluent Guideline Development- Working with Stakeholders
Frequent interaction and discussion with stakeholders leads to more complete databases and better-informed decision making. As a result, outreach is a critical component of effluent guideline development◦ industry◦ citizen/environmental groups◦ states (NPDES agencies, etc.)◦ other federal agencies◦ local governments
Past Approaches to EJ AnalysisQualitative inferenceImpacts via lost jobs or plant closuresImpacts via cost pass-through to consumersCompare demographics of areas with
facilities to demographics of areas in general (e.g., counties)◦ Early rules take ‘eyeball’ approach◦ CAFO rule refinement: compare to rural rather
than general population◦ Later rules use statistical tests of differences
GIS analysis of proximityImpacts to subsistence fishing
Examples of Specific EJ AnalysesMetal Products & Machinery (2003)
◦eyeball approach316(b) Cooling Water Intakes (2011, prop.)
◦statistical test of differences, GIS buffersOil & Gas Extraction (2001)
◦Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids subcategory◦GIS with index of vulnerability
Pulp & Paper (1998)◦dioxin levels in fish tissue and exposure via
subsistence fishing in Native American communities
MP&M: Eyeball Approach
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/mpm/eeba_index.cfm
316(b): GIS and Statistical TestsBenefit population:
◦ individuals within 50 miles of a facility, plus ◦ Anglers within 50 miles of a reach near a facility
Comparison of demographics of benefit population vs. state population
State-level observations used to calculate statistical test of differences (one-tail t-test)◦ Similar to MP&M, states vary
Benefit population is more economically disadvantaged but less racial minority on average than overall population, ◦ Neither difference is statistically significant at 95%
confidence level.
SBDF: GIS with EJ IndexSBDF used only in Gulf of Mexico at the timeZero discharge considered as an option
◦ 15 disposal facilities in TX and LA, via underground injection or land spreading and treatment
◦ Only option with EJ analysis, ◦ Developed by R6: pop density, minority, income
Screening analysis ◦ Does not take fate & transport into account
Buffers of 1 and 50 miles around disposal sites◦ Likely to have higher risk of exposure
Five facilities result in potential EJ concerns: ◦ Four at 1 mile; two at 50 mile
Used to reject zero discharge as a viable option
Pulp & PaperCluster rule issuing regulations under both
CWA and CAAEstimated cancer risk reduction due to reduced
dioxin exposure via subsistence fishing for Native Americans on two rivers◦ Used average fish tissue consumption rates, applied
to total tribal populations◦ Penobscot and Lower Columbia Rivers
An order of magnitude reduction for Penobscot; ten percent reduction for Lower Columbia
Detailed data on fishing was available for these two tribal areas, from surveys in the early 1990s
Issues for EJ Analyses under CWACensus data is readily availablePopulation proximity is readily availableFate and transport requires modeling
that can be difficult nationallyExposure data is much less likely to be
availableSubsistence fishing: exposure route is
clear, but data on affected population is very limited
Location information can come into play
top related