1 / 15

Environmental Justice in CWA Effluent Guidelines

Environmental Justice in CWA Effluent Guidelines. Julie Hewitt US EPA/Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology SAB meeting – June 19, 2013. Outline. Brief background on effluent guidelines (ELGs) Past approaches to EJ analyses in ELGs Examples of specific EJ analyses

kory
Download Presentation

Environmental Justice in CWA Effluent Guidelines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Justice in CWA Effluent Guidelines Julie Hewitt US EPA/Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology SAB meeting – June 19, 2013

  2. Outline • Brief background on effluent guidelines (ELGs) • Past approaches to EJ analyses in ELGs • Examples of specific EJ analyses • Thoughts on EJ analysis issues

  3. 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”

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Past Approaches to EJ Analysis • Qualitative inference • Impacts via lost jobs or plant closures • Impacts via cost pass-through to consumers • Compare 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 proximity • Impacts to subsistence fishing

  7. Examples of Specific EJ Analyses • Metal Products & Machinery (2003) • eyeball approach • 316(b) Cooling Water Intakes (2011, prop.) • statistical test of differences, GIS buffers • Oil & 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

  8. MP&M: Eyeball Approach http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/mpm/eeba_index.cfm

  9. 316(b): GIS and Statistical Tests • Benefit 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.

  10. SBDF: GIS with EJ Index • SBDF used only in Gulf of Mexico at the time • Zero 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

  11. Pulp & Paper • Cluster rule issuing regulations under both CWA and CAA • Estimated 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

  12. Issues for EJ Analyses under CWA • Census data is readily available • Population proximity is readily available • Fate and transport requires modeling that can be difficult nationally • Exposure data is much less likely to be available • Subsistence fishing: exposure route is clear, but data on affected population is very limited • Location information can come into play

More Related