Table 1. Adoption of HHC on a Statewide Basis Pro: Technical Con: Technical Statewide adoption will require the least Range of values used to develop criteria are amount of data to support adoption wider and more varied than those applicable Potential to apply ADF&G on a regional basis Subsistence database info in lieu of Will require the state or a SSC applicant to independent fish consumption survey develop scientifically defensible site specific data. adjustment values for certain HHC inputs if an Allows use of larger, more general datasets alternative HHC is desired: for making decisions (e.g., census data, may need to provide guidance on body weight, drinking consumption development of fish consumption surveys and other applicable tools for developing Adoption of statewide criteria could use SSC. different percentiles to protect both rural DEC does not necessarily have the and urban populations. For example technical expertise on staff to provide Could use 90th percentile of general feedback on certain HHC subjects (e.g., population value (urban/national and adjustment of BAF values on a regional rural data combined). basis). Use 50th percentile of subpopulation (ADF&G subsistence data) to protect rural watersheds. Both approaches consistent with EPA guidance. DEC has the option to be more conservative. Pro: Administrative Con: Administrative has a process in place to readily apply Likely to generate more site specific criteria statewide criteria via existing water requests pollution control programs and products Increased workload on DEC and EPA due (APDES, WQS, TMDL plans) to site specific criteria approval process Burden of proof/cost to adjust criteria is Burden of and costs are borne by the paid for by the applicant rather than the applicant, which may not be palatable for Department certain groups (e.g., permittees or tribes Note that in this instance the applicant depending on how conservatively the criteria are set). may be a tribe, local community or a SSC development and adoption is a long permittee if site specific adjustments process, usually years. are needed including situations where SSC are likely not to have universal statewide criteria are not considered to support (e.g., industries, local be stringent enough for local stakeholders. municipalities) since decisions to create more conservative criteria may be influenced by perceived risk rather than measurable risk. More SSC requests will lead to increased administrative burden on DEC staff. Pro: Policy Con: Policy
Table 1. Adoption of HHC on a Statewide Basis Pro: Technical Con: Technical Statewide adoption will require the least amount of data to support adoption Potential to apply ADF&G Subsistence database info in lieu of independent fish consumption survey data. Allows use of larger, more general datasets for making decisions (e.g., census data, body weight, drinking consumption Adoption of statewide criteria could use different percentiles to protect both rural and urban populations. For example Could use 90th percentile of general population value (urban/national and rural data combined). Use 50th percentile of subpopulation (ADF&G subsistence data) to protect rural watersheds. Both approaches consistent with EPA guidance. DEC has the option to be more conservative. Range of values used to develop criteria are wider and more varied than those applicable on a regional basis Will require the state or a SSC applicant to develop scientifically defensible site specific adjustment values for certain HHC inputs if an alternative HHC is desired: may need to provide guidance on development of fish consumption surveys and other applicable tools for developing SSC. DEC does not necessarily have the technical expertise on staff to provide feedback on certain HHC subjects (e.g., adjustment of BAF values on a regional basis). Pro: Administrative Con: Administrative has a process in place to readily apply statewide criteria via existing water pollution control programs and products (APDES, WQS, TMDL plans) Burden of proof/cost to adjust criteria is paid for by the applicant rather than the Department Note that in this instance the applicant may be a tribe, local community or a permittee if site specific adjustments are needed including situations where statewide criteria are not considered to be stringent enough for local stakeholders. Likely to generate more site specific criteria requests Increased workload on DEC and EPA due to site specific criteria approval process Burden of and costs are borne by the applicant, which may not be palatable for certain groups (e.g., permittees or tribes depending on how conservatively the criteria are set). SSC development and adoption is a long process, usually years. SSC are likely not to have universal support (e.g., industries, local municipalities) since decisions to create more conservative criteria may be influenced by perceived risk rather than measurable risk. More SSC requests will lead to increased administrative burden on DEC staff. Pro: Policy Con: Policy
StatewidevRegionalCriteria_Whitepaper_Draft4-26-16.docx