Environmental Justice in CWA Effluent Guidelines Julie Hewitt

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 �Thoughts 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 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

Examples of Specific EJ Analyses �Metal Products & Machinery (2003) ◦ eyeball approach � 316(b) prop. ) Cooling Water Intakes (2011, ◦ 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

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

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.

SBDF: GIS with EJ Index �SBDF used only in Gulf of Mexico at the �Zero discharge considered as an option time ◦ 15 disposal facilities in TX and LA, via underground injection or land spreading and treatment ◦ Only option with EJ analysis, ◦ Developed by R 6: pop density, minority, income �Screening analysis ◦ Does not take fate & transport into account �Buffers sites of 1 and 50 miles around disposal ◦ Likely to have higher risk of exposure �Five facilities result in potential EJ concerns: ◦ Four at 1 mile; two at 50 mile

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 1990 s

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