Document EvvRGzeqweKDZ7p56895je2DL
AF&PA/EPA Meeting on Human Health Water Quality Criteria
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00001
Use of treaty rights claims to change CWA requirements
Major change in risk policy, with potential impacts for other programs and agencies.
Use of new "suppression effect" theory to radically increase fish consumption levels used to calculate standards; much more stringent and expensive permit limits.
Washington rule could cost over $1B, with no measurable benefits. OIRA should request that EPA submit the rule for review.
Washington rule is less stringent than Maine rule, because the Washington rule is based on a Fish Consumption Rate of 175 g/d v. 286 g/d for Maine.
iwwi pa# . Assodato
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00002
Legal Issues
CEPWAAd, oireressnpoetchtiavveeoaf utrtihboarlittyretaotygorigbhetyso. nd
NAHB\ AF&PA
Creating a new designated use--not allowed under CWA, EPA regulations, Maine law MMaejtohrocdhoalonggye)--frovmiolaetxeisstiAnPgApolicy (2000
I
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00003
Policy Issue: Risk Levels
2000 Methodology (and NTR, GLI)-- State discretion General population: 10-5 or 10-6, as long as subpopulation at 10-4
Policy Rationale "Given the wide variations in consumption patterns, it would not seem to be possible for States and Tribes to provide the same level of protection from contaminated fish for all consumers." 63 Fed. Reg. 36,742, 36,775 (July 7, 1998). Methodology states, "[t]he point is that the risks for different population groups are not the same." Methodology at 2-7 (emphasis added) 10`6 is not the only protective risk level for high consumers * Methodology: 10 6, 10 5, and 1CH for high consumers are all de minimis risk * Long-standing EPA risk policy
* Precedent for other EPA programs and agencies.
Awseiesn
1 iwwi Paflsr A**wS*M#b
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00004
HHWQC Criteria: Three Elements
hhwqc =
excess cancer risk or
hazard quotient
Source: NCASI
risk specific dose or
reference dose
Exposure Scenario
body weight AND drinking water intake AND fish consumption rate AND biological accumulation AND water column concentration AND cooking loss AND duration of exposure AND other exposures
Awseiesn
I Ptirwi Paflsr A**wS*M#b
Human health water quality criteria (HHWQC) are derived using three components: a health protection target; a toxicity value for the substance, and; an exposure scenario The exposure scenario contains both explicit parameters (i.e., those that are visible in the criteria derivation equation) and implicit parameters (i.e., assumptions that influence the calculated criteria but do not appear in the published equation) EPA has recently encouraged states to alter past practices with respect to the fish consumption rate and "other exposures" (i.e., relative source contribution, or RSC) values used in the criteria derivation equation
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00005
Everyone has all of the following characteristics:
P aram eter W eighs...
National D efault Value 80kg (176 lbs)
2.4 L/day (2.5 quarts);
Proposal for W ashington
Sam e
Every Day for 70 Years Drinks Water From the Same Location That is....
Unfiltered and Untreated and From Surface W ater (fakes, streams, etc.)
Same
Proposal fo r M aine (Indian Lands) Sam e
AND
Even/ Day for 70 Years Consumes Fish From the Same Location That Is ..
Contaminated at the HHWQC Level *L:L: g day i.i: oz'-'
From Local Waters, Grocery Stores, Aquaculture. Foreign Countries (excluding marine) and
From Waters Contaminated at the HHWQC Level and
Contaminated with Pollutants from the Water to the Maximum Extent Possible and
Contaminated with the Same Amount of Pollutants Despite Reductions from Cooking
175 g/d (.39 lbs)
All Other Assumptions Are
The Same
286 g/d (.63 lbs)
(the rate that is unsuppressed by concerns about the safety of available fish)
All Other Assumptions Are The Same
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00006
Risk Choices
Impact of EPA Choosing 10~6 v. 10~5 v. 10~4 Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Level
"10-6 means the "risk of developing cancer...would be one in a million on top of the background risk of developing cancer from all other exposures." (emphasis added)*
If Everyone has ALL of the Equation Characteristics:
4 in 10. or .40000 .4001
.40001
* EPA Proposed Criteria for Maine, 81 Fed. Reg. 23243 (4/20/16)
.400001
I APwosrweitesnPaflsr A**wS*M#b
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00007
Risk Comparison
R isk L ev el
Com parison of Risks of Dying to Regulatory A llow able Risk Levels
R is k o f D e a th
A llo w a b le R is k { C a n c e r R isk )
ERA 2000
M ettic dole av
Washi-naSon W at^r Q '.ia U r/
H orida P r o o f e d W ate r Qualitv
EPA D nnfara W ater
EPA Suoerhincl &
State C leanues
F e d e ra lO S sA o n : .St-Q A en W arkoJace S tan d a ate i Dietary
i Sundem ent : Satelv
1 in 10 (.1 x i m 1 in 100 (1 x 10'2)
-a-::' : ^ - < - j i 'O A
( i x lb - 3)
1 in 10.000 (1 X 1 in 100,000 (1 x 1C)-5) 1 in 1 ,C0G 0 00
3 -;i A O ;
Bike sc c ia e r ti'l irtS.OCD}
: v):;:,lf5<: Xr:-b.;xM',
1 in i , o c o ;e o c
1 in 1 0 0 .000,00 0 { t x 10-s )
il
fJ !
i i
j
i!
1! 1 i
9
SAviJCjSfSsn?
.sSsSSS i#f?S!
fi
il
! j
Genets? Ps& iaSr
/
;
<- a u - w - . e u /
; L'.sXf!y?-iX<
A v e r s e }Ki3a;E5tt
! N 1 O
A tte s ta s <1 in SCO)
i
s r ^ n e oxe
(1 irs St
I
r(
|
tS -frA w ii * - ri 51 r s : Y; !
Af-orc; :: :
'.S
i
i .>/'* ( : r:
EPA SufjerfH-W P s : }& ;
! G
! u
!
L
! A
T
!
1
i
O
! N
I ARwirsweiiesnPaflsr A**wS*M#b
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00008
impacts for Other Programs and Agencies
Superfund
ARARs
NCR: "For known or suspected carcinogens,
acceptable exposure levels are generally concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between 10~4 and 10 using information on the relationship between dose and response."
CAA:
MATS cites tribal treaty rights
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00009
Tribal Consum ers as Target Population
New policy to protect tribal consumers as the target population
Contrary to 2000 Methodology, and has not been properly adopted as policy change under APA
The existing methodology to protect general population already provides sufficient protection
i of high consumers Awseiesn iwwi Paflsr
Targets the general population at levels of 10A*-*7wS*M#ob r lower, depending on the exact assumptions used to represent the tribe.
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00010
"Uns oppressed " FCR o f 286 Grams/Day
New policy to base FCR on high consumers, instead of general population; * Not needed to be protective * Violates APA
To protect the designated use, the FCR must represent "sustenance level of consumption unsuppressed by pollutant concerns." * "Scientific and policy judgment" is "necessary and appropriate" * Based on an FAQ document. 81 FR 23245. * Wabanki study : "describe the lifestyle that was universal when resources were in better condition and that some tribal members practice today (and many more that are waiting to resume once restoration goals and protective standards are in place"T" 8 1 FR 23245 (emphasis added)
Awseiesn
1 iwwi Paflsr A**wS*M#b
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00011
"Unsuppressed" FCR of 286 Grams/Day
1991 Maine licensed anglers study
95% of anglers consumed 26 g/d or less. Virtually no fish advisories, so it is an "unsuppressed rate" (no fear of contamination)
148 Native Americans included in survey. 95th percentile was 51 g/d. Max was 182 g/d. But only 6% consumed > than Maine FCR of 32.4 g/d.
Subsistence lifestyle no longer necessary for survival in Maine
Tribal members not likely "waiting to resume" the traditional lifestyle. Studies show when commercial food is available, tribal members consumption patters evolve.
Awseiesn
I iwwi Paflsr A**wS*M#b
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00012
Legal/Policy Issues: CWA and EPA
_
States are the primary authority to set criteria under the CWA
State criteria must protect the designated use and be based on "sound scientific rationale"(40 C.F.R. 131.11(a))
State criteria can deviate from federal criteria (40 C.F.R. 131.11(b)) * Can modify to reflect "site-specific conditions " Can use "other scientifically defensible methods"
State criteria can vary from EPA guidance or recommendations and still be scientifically defensible and protective, particularly in light of the conservative nature of criteria derivation and EPA's own recognition that risks at 10 6, 10 5, or 10'4 are de minimis
State criteria that are scientifically defensible comply with the Act and EPA regulations, and must be approved by EPA, even if they are not consistent with EPA recommendations, guidance or policy.
Called for by the CWA--Cooperative federalism
Awseiesn
I iwwi Paflsr A**wS*M#b
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00013
Factor by which EPA proposed HHW'QC are More Stringent than Prior WA Criteria
? criteria sre
stringent
1?criteria arekn stringent
4? criteria are rnsre stringent by a factor o f 10or greater
Source: NCASI
Assodato'
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00014
Wastewater Treatment Technology Review For WA State Standards
> Even if standards were an order of magnitude less stringent (10x), and if advanced treatment technology were economically feasible, standards could not be met for RGB's and arsenic with available technology.
> Conclusion: EPA's proposed WQS for WA are neither technically nor economically feasible.
>Source: HDR Engineering, Inc. Report
I
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00015
Anticipated Costs to Address EPA PCB Criterion
T a b le 10, Tre a tm e n t T e c h n o lo g y To tal P ro ject C osts in 2013 D ollars fo r a 0.5 m gd F acility and a 25 m gd F a c ility
A lte rn a tiv e 0.5 mgd:
Total Construction: Cost. 2013 dollars i
{$ fVll:lic n |
O&M Net Present Value. 2013
do llars fS fclftEion)*
Total Net Present Valu. 2013
dollars {$ Million}
NPV U nit Cost. 2013
dollars {$/gpd}
Baseline {Conventional Secondary Treatm ent)
1 5 -3 2
Q .5 - 1.1
1 6 -3 3
3 1 -6 6
Advanced Treatm entM F/R C "
2 7 -5 3
3.2 6.8
3G 65
6 0 -1 3 0
Advanced Treatm ent M F /G A C
33 70
5 -10.8
3 0 -8 1
7 6 -1 6 2
increm ental increase to Advanced Treatm ent MF/RG
Increm ental increase to Advanced Treatm ent fv IF /G A C
12 26 18 33
2.7 5.7 4.6 -9 .8
1 5 -3 2 22 48
3 - 64 4 5 - 96
25 mgd:
Baseline (Conventional
166 335
2 5 -6 4
1 8 2 -3 8 9
7 -16
Advanced Treatm ent ivlF /R C r'
233 606
1 5 7 -3 3 6
440 -942
1 8 -3 8
Advanced T reatm ent Iv lF /G A C
343 735
2 5 2 -0 4 1
595 - 1276
2 4 -5 1
Increm ental increase to Advanced Treatm ent fvIF/RO
127-272
131-281
258 553
1 0 -2 2
Increm ental increase to Advanced Treatm ent Iv lF /G A C
187 -401
226.9 - 486
4 1 4 -8 8 7
1 7 -3 5
' D o e s n o t ;n d u e th e c ost fo r :sbor. Assumes zero quid discharge for RO brine management fotlov/ed by evaporation pends. Other options are avafabie as
listed in Section 4.4.2,
fv!F/<3AC=nembrane ftilraiicn/g ran uiated activarse catboo 0& M = o pe ia tion s and m aintenance gpd=gailor-s per dav
I PAR$mjBy$mojNtiis&8l?itmPapgi
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 1
ED 002061 00163678-00016
