Costs for changing pollution criteria in Florida waters likely to exceed EPA estimates

Public release date: 6-Mar-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Lauren Rugani
news@nas.edu
202-334-2138
National Academy of Sciences

WASHINGTON The costs to switch to numeric criteria for limiting nutrient pollutants in Florida waters are expected to exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates, says a new National Research Council report. The committee that wrote the report questioned the validity of several assumptions in the EPA cost analysis and found that EPA did not adequately report on the uncertainties that could affect the cost of the rule change.

In 2009 EPA decided that numeric limits on the concentration of pollutants in water, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, were necessary in Florida to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. These numeric criteria would replace existing state "narrative" criteria, which use words to describe water pollution limits. For example, the Florida narrative standard refers to not causing a population imbalance in aquatic flora and fauna, while the numeric standard would express specific allowable concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in water.

In its economic analysis, EPA calculated the cost differential of switching from the narrative to numeric criteria. It considered only those waters that would be newly listed as "impaired" under the numeric criteria and estimated mitigation costs for a variety of sources of pollution that would affect these waters.

The committee concluded that EPA was correct in its approach to calculating the cost of the rule change. However, the agency underestimated both the number of newly impaired waters and the mitigation costs for the stormwater, agricultural, septic system, and government sectors. Furthermore, there was significant uncertainty in the estimates for the municipal and industrial wastewater sectors, making it difficult to know whether the EPA underestimated or overestimated those costs, the report says. The committee also found that the costs of the rule change would be small relative to the total costs that will ultimately be required to restore Florida's waters.

Future cost analyses of rule changes would be improved if they explicitly described how a rule would be implemented over time and its impact on costs, the report says. If EPA had conducted such an analysis, it would have found that point sources -- such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities -- will face increased costs sooner under the numeric nutrient criteria than under the narrative process.

The report describes a more comprehensive approach for conducting these analyses and summarizes the differences between the narrative rule, numeric rule, and a proposed Florida rule that incorporates aspects of both narrative and numeric criteria. The committee did not produce its own cost estimate for implementing numeric nutrient criteria. It also did not assess the numeric criteria themselves or address the environmental or indirect economic effects of implementing the criteria.

The committee found that discrepancies in cost estimates by EPA and other stakeholders could be traced to different assumptions about how the rules would affect actions taken during the water quality management cycle, from listing water as impaired and establishing target nutrient concentrations to determining when the criteria have been met. If assumptions can be agreed upon, the new framework for future cost analyses could narrow the discrepancies in estimates, the report says.

###

The report was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies' conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.

Contacts:
Lauren Rugani, Media Relations Officer
Luwam Yeibio, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu

Pre-publication copies of Review of EPA's Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Water Science and Technology Board

Committee to Review EPA's Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida

Glen T. Daigger* (chair)
Senior Vice President, Technical Fellow, and
Chief Wastewater Process Engineer
CH2M Hill Inc.
Englewood, Colo.

Otto C. Doering (vice chair)
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Ind.

Leonard A. Shabman (vice chair)
Resident Scholar
Resources for the Future
Washington, D.C.

Walter L. Baker
Director
Division of Water Quality
State of Utah
Salt Lake City

Allen P. Davis
Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park

K.William Easter
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Minnesota
St. Paul

Wendy D. Graham
Carl S. Swisher Eminent Scholar in Water Resources, and
Director
University of Florida Water Institute
Gainesville

Arturo A. Keller
Professor
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management
University of California
Santa Barbara

David J. Mulla
W.E. Larson Chair and Professor
Department of Soil, Water, and Climate
University of Minnesota
St. Paul

Kevin M. Sherman
Director of Engineering
Quanics Inc.
Crestwood, Ky.

Kurt Stephenson
Associate Professor of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg

Michael Tate
Section Chief
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Topeka

Alan H. Vicory
Principal
Stantec Consulting
Cincinnati

LaJuana S. Wilcher
Partner
English, Lucas, Priest, and Owsley LLP
Bowling Green, Ky.

STAFF

Laura J. Ehlers
Study Director

* Member, National Academy of Engineering

---

[ | E-mail | Share ]

?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Public release date: 6-Mar-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Lauren Rugani
news@nas.edu
202-334-2138
National Academy of Sciences

WASHINGTON The costs to switch to numeric criteria for limiting nutrient pollutants in Florida waters are expected to exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates, says a new National Research Council report. The committee that wrote the report questioned the validity of several assumptions in the EPA cost analysis and found that EPA did not adequately report on the uncertainties that could affect the cost of the rule change.

In 2009 EPA decided that numeric limits on the concentration of pollutants in water, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, were necessary in Florida to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. These numeric criteria would replace existing state "narrative" criteria, which use words to describe water pollution limits. For example, the Florida narrative standard refers to not causing a population imbalance in aquatic flora and fauna, while the numeric standard would express specific allowable concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in water.

In its economic analysis, EPA calculated the cost differential of switching from the narrative to numeric criteria. It considered only those waters that would be newly listed as "impaired" under the numeric criteria and estimated mitigation costs for a variety of sources of pollution that would affect these waters.

The committee concluded that EPA was correct in its approach to calculating the cost of the rule change. However, the agency underestimated both the number of newly impaired waters and the mitigation costs for the stormwater, agricultural, septic system, and government sectors. Furthermore, there was significant uncertainty in the estimates for the municipal and industrial wastewater sectors, making it difficult to know whether the EPA underestimated or overestimated those costs, the report says. The committee also found that the costs of the rule change would be small relative to the total costs that will ultimately be required to restore Florida's waters.

Future cost analyses of rule changes would be improved if they explicitly described how a rule would be implemented over time and its impact on costs, the report says. If EPA had conducted such an analysis, it would have found that point sources -- such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities -- will face increased costs sooner under the numeric nutrient criteria than under the narrative process.

The report describes a more comprehensive approach for conducting these analyses and summarizes the differences between the narrative rule, numeric rule, and a proposed Florida rule that incorporates aspects of both narrative and numeric criteria. The committee did not produce its own cost estimate for implementing numeric nutrient criteria. It also did not assess the numeric criteria themselves or address the environmental or indirect economic effects of implementing the criteria.

The committee found that discrepancies in cost estimates by EPA and other stakeholders could be traced to different assumptions about how the rules would affect actions taken during the water quality management cycle, from listing water as impaired and establishing target nutrient concentrations to determining when the criteria have been met. If assumptions can be agreed upon, the new framework for future cost analyses could narrow the discrepancies in estimates, the report says.

###

The report was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies' conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.

Contacts:
Lauren Rugani, Media Relations Officer
Luwam Yeibio, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu

Pre-publication copies of Review of EPA's Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Water Science and Technology Board

Committee to Review EPA's Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida

Glen T. Daigger* (chair)
Senior Vice President, Technical Fellow, and
Chief Wastewater Process Engineer
CH2M Hill Inc.
Englewood, Colo.

Otto C. Doering (vice chair)
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Ind.

Leonard A. Shabman (vice chair)
Resident Scholar
Resources for the Future
Washington, D.C.

Walter L. Baker
Director
Division of Water Quality
State of Utah
Salt Lake City

Allen P. Davis
Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park

K.William Easter
Professor
Department of Economics
University of Minnesota
St. Paul

Wendy D. Graham
Carl S. Swisher Eminent Scholar in Water Resources, and
Director
University of Florida Water Institute
Gainesville

Arturo A. Keller
Professor
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management
University of California
Santa Barbara

David J. Mulla
W.E. Larson Chair and Professor
Department of Soil, Water, and Climate
University of Minnesota
St. Paul

Kevin M. Sherman
Director of Engineering
Quanics Inc.
Crestwood, Ky.

Kurt Stephenson
Associate Professor of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg

Michael Tate
Section Chief
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Topeka

Alan H. Vicory
Principal
Stantec Consulting
Cincinnati

LaJuana S. Wilcher
Partner
English, Lucas, Priest, and Owsley LLP
Bowling Green, Ky.

STAFF

Laura J. Ehlers
Study Director

* Member, National Academy of Engineering

---

[ | E-mail | Share ]

?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/naos-cfc030612.php

james farentino somali pirates navy seals navy seal team 6 tim gunn tim gunn built to last