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