Unfunded mandate. He hablado de este termino antes. En una epoca donde ya caimos en el precipicio y nos arrastramos a la fosa hablamos ahora de modificar el reglamento de estandares de calidad de agua de la junta de calidad ambiental. El reglamento, bastante restricto como esta ya realmente no ha hecho nada por mejorar la calidad del agua, en eliminar los sistemas septicos o establecer un programa efectivo de manejo de cuencas o de manejo de desperdicios fecales animales.
Como no ha funcionado la solucion es incrementar las restricciones a nitrogeno y fosforo a las comunidades reguladas a unos niveles sumamente bajos. Esto lo hacen fundamentalmente copiando lo que la EPA ha estado trayendo a otras jurisdicciones solo basado en la calidad del agua y el efecto en las especies. No en un analisis ponderado de costo beneficio o de cuanto costara proveer el tratamiento para llegar al nivel deseado.
En mi articulo previo hablaba de como el costo de tratamiento para remocion de nitrogeno subia de 4 a 5 veces al tener que bajar de un limite de nitrogeno total de 10 mg/l a 3 mg/l. Cuando las plantas de la AAA no puedan cumplir con el numero a cuanto va a subir el cargo ambiental que han estado imponiendo para cumplir con las ordenes de consentimiento con la EPA?
No voy a tener el tiempo de participar en las vistas publicas que tienen este mes en la JCA para discutir el reglamento para el almacenaje en tanques soterrados ni el de la revision del reglamento de estandares de calidad de agua. Sin embargo, mis esfuerzos relacionados a atar el costo altisimo de ejecutar los nuevos limites propuestos los resumire en esta bibliografia basada en la red. Espero que algun asesor ambiental del gobierno de turno o de la legislatura alcance a ver esta nota.
http://www2.pr.gov/agencias/jca/Documents/Leyes%20y%20Reglamentos/Enmiendas%20y%20Reglamentos%20Propuestos/Reglamento%20de%20Estandares%20de%20Calidad%20de%20Agua/Aviso_RECA_esp_firmado.pdf
http://www2.pr.gov/agencias/jca/Documents/Leyes%20y%20Reglamentos/Enmiendas%20y%20Reglamentos%20Propuestos/Reglamento%20de%20Estandares%20de%20Calidad%20de%20Agua/Carta%20de%20Tramite%20_Analisis_Flexibilidad_firmada.pdf
Sin mas preambulos:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23032438
Este estudio en Colorado demuestra que limites estrictos a las plantas de tratamiento en nitrogeno solo impactaron la carga de nootrogeno en el rio. Las cargas organicas de la cuenca quedaron igual. El enfoque deberia hacerse en las fuentes dispersas.
http://www.slideshare.net/savebuzzardsbay/industry-update-on-nitrogen-removal-programs-across-the-united-states-what-does-it-mean-for-new-england
Este estudio en nueva inglaterra da una idea de las complejidades de tratamiento para las aguas usadas. Trae el punto de que el uso de membranas lograrian el efluente pero a costo de como disponer de las sales concentradas que se generan del proceso y del alto costo de energia y aire adicional para llegar a los niveles deseados.
http://freemarketflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Economic-impacts-of-EPA-Numeric-Criteria-FDACS-Report.pdf
EPA‟s analysis of economic impact to Florida agriculture and related industries was incomplete, both in terms of the estimated number of agricultural acres affected and the methods used to determine economic impact. Even using EPA‟s estimates of affected acreage (6.13 million acres), our analysis, excluding the direct implementation costs of all applicable practices, reveals that annual lost revenues associated with land taken out of production to implement on-farm water treatment/retention practices would be $350 million a year. A more realistic assessment, using water quality modeling and monitoring data, shows that 13.6 million acres of agriculture will experience direct costs. Rather than the $34.9 million total annual cost that EPA suggested, the authors assert that a more justifiable estimate of direct costs is from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually, with additional indirect economic impacts to the state of $1.148 billion annually.
http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/circpdffolder/nutrpt2.pdf
Esta discusion habla de la interaccion entre nitrogeno, fosforo y clorofila. realmente no discute la economia o el costo beneficio de implantar la regla.
http://www.weat.org/Presentations/2012Tischler_Eckenfelder.pdfMany state agencies and regulated communities commented that there are major limitations and scientific flaws in EPA’s guidance
Empirical methods would not require demonstrations of cause and effect – only correlation
Primarily directed toward periphyton growth in streams because of difficulty correlating such growth to nutrients
EPA guidance suggests that correlations with invertebrate taxa richness and/or chlorophyll-a are sufficient to establish numeric standards
EPA Region 3 attempts to apply to southeastern Pennsylvania streams resulted in widespread public comment and recommendation for SAB review
EPA is ratcheting up pressure on states to adopt numeric nutrient criteria
EPA’s recent guidance requesting numeric, independently applicable, criteria for TP and TN for all waters is strongly opposed by most states and point/nonpoint discharger groups and little scientific basis for application to all waters
Costs to POTWs and industry for TP and TN controls will be very high, so there will be continued controversy as nutrient criteria are proposed and implemented
Industry will be affected because all sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater will be addressed
http://www.americanwaterintel.com/archive/3/5/market-analysis/epa-data-understates-value-nutrient-recovery-market.html
According to a report released in March by the National Research Council, the EPA has severely underestimated the costs of implementing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida by confusing incremental costs with total costs. Estimates released by the federal agency in 2010 held that the total annual costs to municipal wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities, agricultural operations and other sources range from $135.5 million to $206.1 million.
Calculations from stakeholders including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Carollo Engineers and Budell et al., however, revealed the total costs of removing phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewater could approach $12 billion. A separate study conducted by consulting firm Cardno ENTRIX on behalf of the Florida Water Quality Coalition estimated an annual range between $400 million and $4 billion.
Industry observers have long known that the EPA has understated the extent to which imposing numeric instead of narrative criteria – which has been the traditional approach in Florida – would cost dischargers. The findings of the National Research Council’s review committee, which was chaired by Glen Daigger of CH2M Hill, are simply further confirmation that numeric nutrient criteria will likely cause financial pain when and if they are implemented.
http://www.beefusa.org/floridanumericnutrientcriteria.aspx
Litigation Points
EPA’s usurpation of Florida’s state rights to set nutrient criteria violates the premise of cooperative federalism which Congress intended to be the underpinning of the CWA.
The “necessity determination” is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act because it was created as a tool to avoid future litigation by inducing a settlement agreement with environmentalists, and did not make a determination based on the scientific evidence.
The Instream Criteria is also arbitrary and capricious because EPA cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the instream concentrations of nutrients and an observable negative biological response.
The numeric criteria are beyond the scope of EPA’s rulemaking authority under the CWA because the criteria are not protective of the designated uses (a requirement of the CWA). The basis for this argument lies in fact that the EPA has yet to establish a cause-and-effect or dose-response relationship between nutrient concentrations and biological response in streams. Therefore, some streams could be designated as impaired when, in fact, they are not.
EPA’s numeric criteria ignored recent relevant recommendations from the Agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), most notably, the necessity to understand the causative link between nutrient levels and impairment; otherwise, it is not scientifically defensible.
EPA’s numeric criteria violate the APA because proper procedures were not followed when making the “necessity determination.” There was no opportunity for public notice and comment.
- See more at:
http://www.beefusa.org/floridanumericnutrientcriteria.aspx#sthash.s3g7DRql.dpuf
Analizando la informacion de apoyo suplido por la JCA realmente no se hace un analisis de impacto economico de la imposicion de estas limitaciones. Sus argumentos se limitan a que las percentilas (o quartiles si asi lo quieren llamar) muestras valores encima del valor de "toxicidad" usado como benchmark en los Estados Unidos. Dado la manera tan cuestionable de deteminar esa toxicidad el numero es altamente cuestionable. No se hace una correlacion entre dosis y efecto en la biota para determinar su toxicidad, solo que su presencia esta presente en algas indicadoras basadas en clorofila.
http://www2.pr.gov/agencias/jca/Documents/Leyes%20y%20Reglamentos/Enmiendas%20y%20Reglamentos%20Propuestos/Reglamento%20de%20Estandares%20de%20Calidad%20de%20Agua/SCIENTIFIC%20AND%20TECHNICAL%20BASIS%20OF%20NUMERIC%20NUTRIENT%20CRITERIA%20DEVELOPMENT.pdf
For example, current nutrient water-quality standards in Puerto Rico are 1,000 μg TP/L and 10 mg NO3-N/L (for nitrogen) for class SD waters, which includes rivers, lakes, and estuaries (PREQB, 2010). In contrast, numeric nutrient criteria proposed in other regions of the continental USA for rivers range between 10 to 76 μg total P L-1 and between 0.12 to 2.18 mg total N/L (median of 33 μg TP/L and 0.56 mg TN/L) (USEPA, 2002).
Ese es el meollo de la premisa erronea de la JCA y la EPA. Todo lo demas es jugar con estadisticas con algun software y poner graficas que buscan aparentar muchas cosas excepto lo que es: tabular todos los datos del USGS y de la red de la JCA y distribuirlos en percentilas y por parametros. No importa la tendencia o la historia, solo que sea mas grande que ël toxico"que dice EPA.
http://www2.pr.gov/agencias/jca/Documents/Leyes%20y%20Reglamentos/Enmiendas%20y%20Reglamentos%20Propuestos/Reglamento%20de%20Estandares%20de%20Calidad%20de%20Agua/Nut_Crit_Rivers_Final%20Report3%202009-2010.pdf
Este estudio es peor. Las graficas presentadas incluso muestran mejorias en algunas de las cuencas estudiadas. Pero como el objetivo es que el numero es mas grande que el de EPA no hacen mas analisis. Lo otro es tratar de atar las algas y la clorofila a la presencia de P y N.
No me creen. Escuchen el eco - eco - eco - eco
Contrary to the development of reference criteria there is no specific methodology to calculating the numeric nutrient criteria. The use of stressor-response relationships in which a response variable (e.g., chlorophyll a) is related to a causal variable [in this case nutrients (i.e., TN, TP)] is often recommended as the ideal approach. However, due to the myriad of environmental factors that influence response variables (light, water turbulence, sedimentation, prey-predator relationships, etc.), this approach is usually hindered by the large number of data required to establish sufficiently strong correlations between a response variable and nutrients. As an alternative, EPA has used the distributional statistics of total N, and total P concentrations in order to identify appropriate thresholds to provide protection of aquatic life designated uses (Federal Register, 2010). Since nutrients are a major controlling factor of the biological productivity in any
aquatic system, a common approach to assessing ecological integrity is to classify the individuals within a particular target population (e.g., rivers/streams) into different trophic (productivity) categories. The scientific community has yet to adopt a consent approach for classifying the trophic state of rivers/streams. However, in general, trophic state is classified based on nutrients and algal biomass. Dodds and Welch (2000) proposed using the cumulative frequency distribution of chlorophyll and nutrients to define the boundaries of three major trophic categories, namely: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. The authors used the lower 1/3 percentile (Q33) of the distribution to set the boundary between oligo-mesotrophic categories and the upper 1/3 percentile (Q66) to establish the boundary between meso-eutrophic categories. Preliminary numeric nutrient criteria can then be established using the meso-eutrophic boundary (Q66). These values could be refined once sufficient data from pertinent stressor-response relationships become available. Adopting this approach (Q66) to calculate a set of numeric nutrient criteria based on the USGS data sets yielded the following values: 1.70 mg/L for total N and 0.160 mg/L total P. A margin of safety would need to be included. These values could be proposed as numeric nutrient limits for rivers/streams of Puerto Rico. In the case of total P the proposed value (0.160 mg/L) contrasts with the current limit of 1.0 mg/L. The former is closer to what is generally considered detrimental in other parts of the world, and thus, should enable better identification of impaired sites and implementation of protective guidelines. Numeric nutrient criteria recently proposed for the Florida Panhandle and Peninsula watershed regions are: 0.824 mg/L TN and 0.043 mg/L TP, and 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP, respectively. In that case, impairment is ascribed to streams/rivers whose annual geometric mean surpasses the proposed values more than once in a three year period. In addition, impairment is also ascribed to rivers/streams whose long-term average of annual geometric mean values surpasses the proposed limits (Federal Register, 2010).
Veamos entonces el costo de implantar estas condiciones operacionales:
http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/POTWnutrient/report/StatewideNutrientRemovalCostImpactStudyRptFINAL.pdf Tier 2 - 24 millones 1.0P/20 NTier 2N 142 millones 1.0P/no limit NTier 1 818 millones 0.1P/no limite NTier 1N 1043 millones 0.1P/10 N http://www.lcm2007.ethz.ch/paper/180.pdf
Conclusions
This quantitative LCA of various WWTP configurations demonstrates that the most environmentally sound option is not necessarily at the limit of “best practice” for nutrient removal. There exists a broader environmental trade-off for advanced nutrient removal, that can only be justified by society implicitly placing higher value on local water quality, than on global environmental pressures (e.g. climate change). The environmental costs of achieving higher levels of nutrient removal become increasingly significant and may outweigh the local benefits arising from improved water quality. These findings are very significant, particularly given increasing public awareness of global environmental issues. Regulatory agencies should reconsider their water quality protection strategies, since the current paradigm for WWTPs has a singular focus on effluent quality, without considering the broader environmental consequences of the treatment required to meet these stringent limits. Furthermore, domestic wastewater treatment, based primarily on anaerobic processes with energy recovery, potentially provides better environmental outcomes than “leading edge” extended aeration BNR methods. This is true even when the anaerobic systems are complemented with chemically-assisted, aerobic post-treatment so as to achieve the same level of nutrient removal as the comparable extended aeration BNR processes. This study helps inform water authorities and regulatory agencies for future policy and funding strategies. A shift towards anaerobic treatment is justified on the basis of whole-of-plant life
http://www.nj.gov/dep/wms/bwqsa/EPA%20-Biologicl%20nutrient%20removal%20processes&costs.pdf
Y cierro aqui. A fin de cuentas van a hacer lo de siempre. Van a poner los limites y multar las industrias, que seguiran buscando mejores costas. A fin de cuentas todo esto se vino abajo con las 936 que los PNP mataron (un popular) o cuando eligieron a AGP que era mucho riesgo para puerto rico (un PNP) o esto se resuelve eliminando las leyes de cabotaje para que seamos como singapur (un PIP).
