2 Standards and Criteria
The second chapter in the fundamental techniques group is on standards and criteria. Standards and criteria were first designed to regulate environmental pollution and are an important part of current environmental management plans. Standards are regulations that include designated uses (e.g., water for consumption, swimming) and criteria (e.g., chlorine should not exceed 19 ug/L) that should be applied to protect those uses (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021). Criteria are used to evaluate or test the quality of something and decide if it passes or if action should be taken. In this chapter, we explain the meanings of standards and criteria, provide lessons on implementation, explore some examples, and end with a case study on New Jersey water quality management.
USE OF STANDARDS
Standards are pervasive in society. They are used by governments to protect the public and the environment. For example, in the United States, food safety standards help to reduce the number of pathogen-related outbreaks. Road safety standards keep us safer while driving. Environmental standards help to protect the environment and are the first and fundamental technique for doing so.
PROPERTIES OF STANDARDS
Standards are meant to be set and then applied repeatedly (Fischhoff 1984). Generally the use of a standard is considered an administrative act unlike decision-making which is a political act (Fischhoff 1984). Standards determine whether some actions, all actions or no actions are acceptable. Assessments based on standards are irreversible unless the standard is changed later (Fischhoff 1984).
Conditions that favor standard setting are listed in Table 2.1. In particular, standards are appropriate in the following situations (Fischhoff 1984):
1) When no choice among options is possible.
2) When no choice among options is required.
3) When predictability is important.
4) When regulators hope to shape future options.
5) When competing technologies fall in the same jurisdiction.
6) When category members are homogeneous.
7) When an explicit policy statement is attractive.
8) When value issues are sensitive.
9) When political resources are limited.
10) When process is unimportant.
11) When awkward applications can be avoided.
Deciding to rely on a standard sets into motion many small decisions brought about by translating the standard into operational terms (Fischhoff 1984). There are four generic approaches to setting standards (Table 2.2). The approaches differ in the perspectives that they consider and the methods used for implementing them. The choice among approaches in a particular case is based in part on an empirical question about the potential advantages and disadvantages, as well as a political question about the importance of these advantages and disadvantages (Fischhoff 1984). Hybrid approaches are also possible.
Table 2.2: Methods for setting standards. Source: Fischhoff 1984
IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS
In the early 1960s, the United States congress passed the first environmental laws utilizing standards (Houck 2003) based on analysis done by scientists. These standards were meant to prevent environmental harm rather than compensate for it and required enforcement to encourage compliance.
This first wave of environmental laws were science-based environmental policy in action. One of the first laws enacted was the Water Quality Act of 1965 which sought to improve conditions based on water quality criteria. It was soon followed by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the analysis of environmental impact. Then came the Clean Air Act of 1970, which focused on the attainment of national ambient air quality standards (Houck 2003). These Acts were followed by many others, all with the same premise that scientists would draw the lines in preserving and improving environ- mental health: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (waste disposal), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (abandoned waste sites), the Toxic Substances Control Act (chemicals), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (pesticides), and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE STANDARDS USED FOR CLEAN WATER
Water quality standards and criteria are the regulatory and scientific foundation for programs established under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to protect the Nation’s waters. Early water quality legislation was for the protection of public health. Over time, this purpose was supplemented to include aesthetic and recreational purposes (fishable and swimmable waters) and then with the goal of restoring and maintaining the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (Hershman and Feldmann 1979) through administration by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The USEPA’s strategy is built upon a long-term vision for the future:
“All waters of the United States will have water quality standards that include the highest attainable uses, combined with water quality criteria that reflect the current and evolving body of scientific information to protect those uses. Further, standards will have well- defined means for implementation through Clean Water Act programs” (Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003).
In practice, each of these purposes must be restated in operational and measurable terms as ambient water quality standards.
The USEPA designates water quality standards and criteria to protect the uses of water and set an- tidegradation policies (National Research Council 2001). It straddles the dual roles of establishing goals and providing the regulatory basis to enforce strategies. In addition, they provide policy guidance and scientific information to states and tribes; they also review state standards, approve or disapprove them, and can issue federal standards to replace or correct state policy deficiencies where necessary.
Many of the standards issued in the mid-1970s to support the CWA have not changed much since then. For example, the “red book” (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) contains quality criteria for United States waters (United States Environmental Protection Agency 1976). Similarly, the “gold book,” issued ten years later, contains additional quality criteria for water (United States Environmental Protection Agency 1986).
Starting in the 1970s, states began developing their own water quality standards and criteria. The intent was to identify specific sources of pollution in violation of these standards. Once these sources were carefully identified, controls on polluting activities were put in place. However, multiple sources of pollutants made it difficult to unambiguously determine which were responsible for violating the standard. Neither the available monitoring data nor the analytical methods in use allowed the states to defensibly mandate differential load-reduction requirements. State level standards and criteria were rarely fine-tuned and proved inadequate when dealing with complex issues like sedimentation, flow, pathogens, feasibility for all sites, or when evaluating the cumulative effects from combinations of pollutants or stressors.
The amendments incorporated into the 1972 CWA recognized this dilemma and shifted the focus of water quality management away from ambient standards. Instead, all emitters of pollutants were expected to limit their discharges by meeting nationally established effluent standards. Effluent standards are specified in National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, issued by the states. These standards were set at a national level based on available technologies for wastewater treatment appropriate to different industry groups. The shift to effluent standards eliminated the need to link required reductions at particular sources with the ambient condition of a waterbody.
Instead, each regulated source was simply required to meet the effluent standard for its particular wastewater discharge.
Thus, a shift in thinking occurred: water quality accomplishments could be described in terms of compliance rather than on the condition of the waters themselves. However, it should be noted that effluent standards only applied to point sources of pollution (e.g., pollutants from a pipe or known location). Pollutants from nonpoint sources (agricultural, silvicultural, and construction activities) escaped oversight.
Present-day implementation requires states to identify waters not meeting effluent standards, define the pollutants and the responsible sources, and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to achieve these standards (Cooter 2004).
LESSONS ON STANDARDS APPLICATIONS
Unfortunately, the first generation of environmental laws with quality standards didn’t work. Administrators began to realize that science is rarely definitive and conclusive. In the world of environmental policy this spells disaster. The reason is political: environmental policy faces a degree of resistance unique in public law. Few who have to comply with environmental law like it and many detest it outright. The reasons for this are many. Environmental laws are intrusive, involve people, state bureaucrats, the general public, the media, and environmental policies are often seen as threatening personal choice.
Resistance to environmental policy brings at least two consequences. The first is: that which is not nailed down by law is not likely to happen. The second is: even for requirements that are nailed down, compliance rates are about 50% percent (Houck 2003). A good rule of thumb is that no environmental law, no matter how stringently written, achieves more than half of what it set out to do (Houck 2003).
Second generation laws worked differently. Congress changed the rules of the clean water game and adopted a new standard: best available technology (BAT). The theory of BAT was very simple: If emissions could be reduced, just do it. It did not matter what the impacts were. It did not matter where a plant was discharging. It didn’t matter what scientists said the harm was or where it came from. The theory was, just reduce it. Within 5 years, industrial discharges of conventional pollutants were down by 80% (Houck 2003). Receiving water quality improved by an average of 35% across the board (Houck 2003). For all BAT-controlled sources, the amendments were a stunning success.
Some lessons came out of this process. First, beware the lure of “scientific management.” The technology standards initially implemented were criticized as too arbitrary, one size fits all, inflexible, treatment for treatment’s sake, and outmoded. They often spurred iterative, impact-based, localized management techniques focused on the scientifically determined needs of a river, airshed, or community. Though good in theory, decades of implementation failed. The biggest losers under the federal air and water quality acts were the science-based TMDL and state implementation plan programs. These were very costly and featured shameless manipulation of the data, crippling political pressure, and little abatement of the water quality issues.
The second lesson involves another caution: beware the lure of “good science.” The theory of good science goes like this: good science is the science that supports your case. All other science is bad. If opposed to something, science is never good enough. Such a perspective can give rise to many tactics for delay. In the name of good science, peer review of all science-based decisions may be requested. Decisions can be stalled by lack of consensus among independent reviewers. More studies may be commissioned. Years will pass. Administrations will change. Nothing will get done and the opponents win.
CASE STUDY: NEW JERSEY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Let’s take a look at New Jersey State water regulations. New Jersey’s waters are overseen by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Division of Water Monitoring and Standards (Figure 2.3) (NJDEP 2021a).
New Jersey’s Surface Water Quality Standards were developed and are administered in conformance with requirements of the CWA, the Federal regulatory program established by the USEPA, and the New Jersey Water Quality Planning Act (NJDEP 2021a). The State uses Surface Water Quality Stan- dards (SWQS) to assure that both current decision-making and future planning adequately take into ac- count protection of water quality and quantity. The SWQS include the policies, surface water classifications, and surface water quality criteria necessary to protect the quality of New Jersey’s surface waters (NJDEP 2021a).
The SWQS protect the health of New Jersey waters by establishing designated uses, classifying streams based on uses, designating antidegradation categories, and developing water quality criteria to protect the streams and their uses (NJDEP 2021a). In addition, the standards specify general, technical, and interstate policies, as well as policies pertaining to the establishment of water quality-based effluent limitations (NJDEP 2021a).
The SWQS ensure that New Jersey waters are suitable for all existing and designated uses, including drinking water supply, fish consumption, recreation, flood protection, shellfish resources, propagation of fish and wildlife, agricultural, and industrial water supplies (NJDEP 2021a). The SWQS also protect the health of New Jersey citizens and visitors by ensuring that the drinking waters are suitable for consumption, that the bathing waters are safe for swimming, and that the fish and shellfish harvested from our waters are safe to eat. The SWQS also protect waters for other uses such as trout production and maintenance, agricultural and industrial use (NJDEP 2021a).
Surface waters are categorized into stream classifications based on designated uses. New Jersey has both fresh and saline waters. Freshwaters are classified as FW1 (not subject to any manmade wastewater discharges) and FW2 waters (all other freshwaters). Freshwaters are further classified based on trout status; trout production (FW2-TP), trout maintenance (FW2-TM), and non-trout (FW2-NT). Waters within Pinelands Protection and Preservation areas are classified as pinelands waters (PL). Saline waters are classified as saline estuarine (SE) and saline coastal (SC). SE waters are further classified into SE1, SE2, and SE3 based on the designated uses (NJDEP 2021a).
There are three levels of anti-degradation designations: Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW), Category One (C1) waters, and Category Two (C2) waters. All waters of the State are classified and assigned one of the three anti-degradation designations. Each stream in New Jersey is designated with a classification and an antidegradation designation (NJDEP 2021a).
Finally, Water Quality Criteria were developed for individual pollutants to protect aquatic life (plants and animals that live and reproduce in water) and human health in both fresh and saline waters. Criteria were developed to protect water quality for designated uses including the survival, growth, and reproduction of aquatic life, and drinking water and fish consumption for human health protection. Different criteria may be applicable to different stream classifications. For ex- ample, the criterion for dissolved oxygen is different for trout production, trout maintenance, nontrout, SE, and SC waters (NJDEP 2021a).
New Jersey also implements several water quality improvements or restrictions. One method is through the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) which issues permits based on a calculation of water quality based effluent limitations for point source discharges. The calculation is based on the size of the receiving stream, the volume of wastewater, current levels of pollutants in the receiving stream, and effluent characteristics (NJDEP 2021a). Another method is through FloodHazard Area Control Act Rules in which a 300 foot riparian zone is imposed on flood hazard areas with certain designations.
How is New Jersey doing with this system? New Jersey is the fifth smallest, yet most densely populated state in the Nation but is also one of the most geologically and hydrogeologically diverse states (NJDEP 2020). The surface waterbody types in New Jersey range from intermittent streams to large potentially-tidal river systems, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, wetlands (freshwater and saltwater), estuarine and coastal (ocean) waters (NJDEP 2020) and abundant groundwater resources (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3: Areal extent of each recourse category. Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2020 (1 state population values from 2019 census)
The majority of fully supporting assessment units (green) were found in the less densely populated areas of the state in the Northwest Highlands (Upper Delaware Region) and the Southern Pinelands (Atlantic Coastal Region) (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). These areas were characterized as having large intact forested and wetland areas, intact riparian buffers, and limited dense urban development (NJDEP 2021b). Biological impairments were identified as the most frequent reason waterbodies were not able to support aquatic life (Figure 2.6) (NJDEP 2021b). Additional reasons for water quality impairment included high nutrients, total phosphorus, and impairments associated with nutrient over-enrichment (NJDEP 2021b). The NJDEP is developing strategies that will address these impairments utilizing the most effective restoration actions.
SUMMARY
Standards were established by the government as rules used to protect the public and the environment. Criteria are used as the principles for evaluating or testing whether something meets a standard. Standards and criteria have successfully been used to protect against high levels of pollution, waste disposal, toxic chemicals, pesticides and more. Standards and criteria have been in use for many decades and have served to provide us with cleaner air, water and land.
REFERENCES
Cooter, W.S., 2004. Clean Water Act assessment processes in relation to changing US Environmental Protection Agency management strategies. Environmental science & technology, 38(20), pp.5265- 5273.
Fischhoff, B., 1984. Setting standards: A systematic approach to managing public health and safety risks. Management Science, 30(7), pp.823-843.
Hershman, M. and Feldmann, J.H., 1979. Coastal Management: Readings and Notes. University of Washington, Institute for Marine Studies, Coastal Resources Program.
Houck, O., 2003. Tales from a troubled marriage: Science and law in environmental policy. Science, 302(5652), pp.1926-1929.
National Research Council, 2001. Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2020. New Jersey Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Available: https://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bears/assessment- report20182020.html (September 2021).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2021a. Division of Water Monitoring and Standards. Available: https://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bears/swqs.htm (September 2021).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2021b. 2018-2020 Integrated Report: State Storymap. Available: https://njdep.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html? appid=b5d39074f9ab424689caa8ec387dcef7 (September 2021).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Quality criteria for water “red book.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA # 440976023, Washington, DC. [D 0584/M 277].
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Quality criteria for water 1986 “gold book.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/5-86-001, Washington, DC. [D 0582].
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Strategy for water quality standards and criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-823-R-03-010, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. Relationship between Water Quality Criteria and Water Quality Standards. Available: https://www.epa.gov/standards-water-body-health/relationship-between-water-quality-criteria-and- water-quality-standards (September 2021).
