/
Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards rule-makings Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards rule-makings

Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards rule-makings - PowerPoint Presentation

faustina-dinatale
faustina-dinatale . @faustina-dinatale
Follow
387 views
Uploaded On 2016-05-27

Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards rule-makings - PPT Presentation

Cheryl Niemi Washington Department of Ecology Spokane River Forum March 27 2013 Two concurrent Surface Water Quality Standards WQS rule revisions Human healthbased criteria HHC adoption Revised implementation tools focused on variances compliance schedules and likely intake cred ID: 336830

rule criteria risk water criteria rule water risk quality policy shellfish hhc standards fish making tools management health human

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Washington’s Surface Water Quality Sta..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards rule-makings: human health-based criteria and implementation tools

Cheryl NiemiWashington Department of EcologySpokane River ForumMarch 27, 2013Slide2

Two concurrent Surface Water Quality Standards (WQS) rule revisions

Human health-based criteria (HHC) adoptionRevised implementation tools – focused on variances, compliance schedules, and (likely) intake creditsStatus and current timeline of the rule-makings:

At the

CR-101

stage now: “intent to develop a rule”CR-102 - Fall/winter 2013 - draft rule language with APA-required draft Cost/Benefit Analysis, Small Business Economic Impact Statement, etc.. – 180-day public review of draft ruleCR-103 - final rule adoption - 2014 Slide3

Rule-making Process – where we are now

CR-101 Stage – three main venues for participationPolicy Forums – public workshops to provide education, share perspectives, and prepare for discussion and evaluation of draft rule languageExamine discharge scenarios under current rules and then modify scenarios based on hypothetical changes to specific inputs to the criteria equations, possible modifications to analytical techniques, changes in 303(d) listing status, etc…

Delegates Table

- Meetings of representatives from different stakeholder groups to share concerns, perspectives and ideas, and to discuss policy issues. Not a decision-making body.Meetings – available to meet with groups if desiredSlide4

Why is Ecology doing these rule-makings now?

Implementation Tools: Current and future needs for tools that will help facilitate source controls and compliance for dischargers where meeting standards will take a long time – up to many decades. Current implementation tools are limited to 5 and 10 year timeframes.

This includes both toxics and conventional pollutants (e.g., temperature).

Human health-based criteria:

WA is currently under 1992 federal rule for HHC: The National Toxics Rule (NTR; 40 CFR 131.36).The older NTR criteria should be updated to include consideration of:New toxicity factors: cancer and non-cancerCriteria for additional chemicals added to EPA’s recommended criteria list since 1992New regional information on fish and shellfish

consumption

This will be the first time these criteria have been adopted into the WA WQS.

Triennial Review web site:

http://

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/triennial_review.html

2010

Triennial Review of the WQS

ranked HHC adoption and implementation tools revisions as a high priority –

targeted

to start rule-making in 2012. Slide5

Situation: Some pollution reduction situations will take longer than 10

years to meet standards

5

Increasing pollution

Time

10 yrs

Short-term

Actions

0 yrs

Long-term

Actions

WQ criteria – risk based or NC

Pollutant concentrations decreasing over timeSlide6

WQS are composed of three main parts

1. Designated uses – include aquatic life, drinking water, recreation, etc…

Criteria

– levels

of water quality that fully protect the uses Numeric Narrative3. Antidegradation Policy - ensures existing and designated uses are maintained and protected, and that waters of a higher quality than the criteria assigned in the standards are not degraded unless necessary and in the overriding public interest

(WAC

173-201A-300).

Also: Other policies affecting application and implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows, and variances (40CFR131.13).

Human health criteria rule-making

Implementation Tools Rule-makingSlide7

What uses do HHC protect?

The “fishable/swimmable” goal of the CWAThe drinking water designated use

A

h

uman health criterion is the highest concentration of a pollutant in surface water that is not expected to pose a significant risk to human health.Slide8

EPA’s Recommended Criteria

EPA’s recommended criteria are for states to use as needed. They are developed for nation-wide use.EPA uses default exposure assumptions that are based on national data in its recommended HHC: A drinking water intake of 2 liters per day;

An

average body weight of 70 kg;

A fish/shellfish intake rate of 17.5 g/daySlide9

Washington’s current HHC are

in federal rule1992 National Toxics Rule Currently contains criteria for 85 chemicalsCriteria are based on the national default assumptions used in early 1990’s:

NTR found at 40 CFR Part 131

Assumption

National 1992 value

Drinking water intake

2 liters per day (=

approx. 2 qts)

Average body weight

70 kg (= 154 lbs.)

Fish/shellfish

consumption rate

6.5 g/day (=0.23 oz./day = approx. 5.2 lbs/year Slide10

National Toxics Rule

A little over half the 85 chemicals are carcinogens (e.g. DDT and PAHs). The rest are non-carcinogens.NTR includes a risk level for carcinogens of one-in-one million (Washington’s WQS language includes this risk level).Slide11

How are current NTR HHC used in regulating sources of pollution?

Identifying impaired waterbodies under CWA Section 303(d)Targets in Water Clean-up Plans(Total Maximum Daily Loads)NPDES

permit limitsSlide12

Calculating HHC

Each chemical has 2 criteria associated with it

Exposure pathway:

fish/shellfish and drinking water

These criteria apply to freshwatersExposure pathway: fish/shellfish only These

c

riteria

a

pply

to marine waters

Carcinogenic chemicalsExample: DDTFish and Shellfish ingestion

Water ingestionCancer effectsFish and Shellfish ingestion

Cancer effects

Non-carcinogenic chemicals

Example: MercuryNon-cancer effectsFish and Shellfish ingestion

Water ingestion

Non-cancer effects

Fish and Shellfish ingestionSlide13

Some of the big policy/risk management decisions:

Clarification of the risk level in the WQS?Fish consumption rate or ratesGeographic break?Anadromous fish?Additional data needs?How to address sources of toxics outside the scope of the CWA – and how does this affect the criteria equation inputs?Adopt criteria for all new EPA recommended chemicals?

Any state-specific criteria?Slide14

Science, science policy, and risk management

Risk Management example from EPA (2000): “Risk management is the process of selecting the most appropriate guidance or regulatory actions by integrating the results of risk assessment with engineering data and with social, economic, and political concerns to reach a decision.

In this (EPA 2000) methodology, the choice of a default fish consumption rate which is protective of 90 percent of the general population is a risk management decision. The choice of an acceptable cancer risk by a State or Tribe is a risk management decision.”

(from: USEPA. 2000.

Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000), EPA-822-B-00-004, page 2-3)Slide15

Law, regulation, policy, and guidance

Set requirements and boundaries.All these can carry different weight when making regulatory decisions. Will need to clearly articulate the choices and directions guided by these factors, as well as be clear about the policy, science policy, and risk management decisions inherent in HHC development.

Focus on

transparency

in communication and decision-making.Slide16

What we have now and ahead of us..

Big and complex processAddress science, science policy, and risk management all within the boundaries and requirements set by law, regulation, policy, and guidance. Slide17

Conclusion

Plan to continue work on developing a broad public discussion of the issues surrounding development of the human health criteria and the development of new or revised implementation tools, and the way the contents of these rules could play out in the future. Scenarios will continue to be important to look at overall impacts to the permitting program. Slide18

Additional Resources

Surface Water Quality Standards web page: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/index.html Surface Water Quality Standards Rule Revisions: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/Currswqsruleactiv.htmlWater Quality Information, including rule making information: http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WATER-QUALITY-INFO

Water Quality Standards Coordinator

Becca Conklin

360-407-6413 swqs@ecy.wa.gov Water Quality Standards Toxics Technical and Policy Lead Cheryl Niemi 360-407-6440 cheryl.niemi@ecy.wa.gov Agency ContactsSlide19

Thank you

Questions/comments?