DEQ-CFW_00019613

From: FXsgauniJon [/O=[XCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGEADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYD|BOHF2]SPDLT)/CN=REOP|ENTS/CN=D1EE2G77427748CF995EA[3D56A4[21E-JRR|5GAARD]
Sent: 4/22/I0I63:I9:25PW1
To: Culpepper, Linda [/b=ExchanXeLabs/ou=[xchangeAdministrative Group
(FYD|8OHFZ33PDO)/cn=Redpient$cn=73d475cbae3Z4aI9687e171Idc9a79c5'|mcu|pepper]
Subject: RE: Draft for your input -FVV:Reminder -FVV:EPA Issues
Attachments imageOOlpnX
Sorry, 3eff and I talked about this yesterday. z share his concerns/ interest in electronic reporting
requirements and consistency and communication improvements for enforcement.
It might be worth talking about any potential changes to or inspection commitments, but we don't have
concerns with meeting the current commitments with the exception of single family discharge covered under
the general mposs permit.
From: Culpepper, Linda
Sent: Thursday, April 21' 2016 4:5O mw
To: nisgaard' zon
subject: Draft for your input — Fw: Reminder - rw: EPA Issues
Setting up a short list for Tom' then longer list for 3ay's use.
Add your stuff to it - can be Friday morning, but need to get it to him around the time 3ay gets in.
Thanks.
linda
owx items
Public water supply
Good working relationship with x4 staff in public water supply. Appreciate their
participation in NC operators schools and training for the revised total culiform rule.
Need better communication on data needs - ex: recent spread sheet request for lead in
drinking water. states not clear on what info. it was supposed to capture.
Concern on EPA pressure to require systems to respond to non -regulatory items. example is
the forthcoming revised health advisory on ppos/ppoA.
EPA is working on a sanitary survey training for the states - we still need that.
Permitting
Region 4 staff has been timely in response to correspondence and meetings. cx: following conference
calls EPA has been sending by e-mail a summary of discussions and agreements.
There also seems to be more staff willingness to have a solutions based approach (a recent example is
permitting strategy following triennial standards approval).
x remaining issue is a need to have all states in the region treated similarly for similar issues. we
also need to work together better on burdensome new issues or rule.
sx: e-reporting implementation where the states have a federal mandate but are resource constrained and
may need Regional help for implementation.
would like to see better and more timely enforcement partnership. seems like some sites we can't seem
assistance in enforcement and on other sites cn^ is doing enforcement when
mc feels the issues have already been resolved or are not of any significance.
Regional office
planning
Interest in EPA sharing information in these areas:
Nutrient management strategies that are working in Region zv
Poultry and nutrient issues across Region zv
Water supply, water withdrawal permitting and instream flow requirement issues in Region zv
Atmospheric nitrogen issues in Region zv
TMoL - appreciate cnx's flexibility in officially recognizing alternatives to the traditional TMoL that
is in the new 20I5 prioritization framework.
OEQ-CFVV_00019613

we feel this recognizes that a TmoL is not always the best tool to achieve water quality
improvement/restoration, especially where nonpoint sources are the primary contributor.
Triennial Review of water Quality standards —the snv review of the state's submitted package took an
entire year, cwA formally allows EPA 60 days to approve and 90 days to disapprove a submitted standard.
This resulted in a "waiting" period on a number of implementation and monitoring fronts that affect
future assessment ability. Not good. z would recommend that EPA meet hO/gO days to approve/disapprove
future submittals. 3eff recommends the state set an effective date approximately 90 days out, to allow
the standards to become effective in the state administrative rode concurrent with the deadline for spx
to approve/disapprove the rules. This would avoid confusion of what is printed in the state's
administrative code versus what is actually allowed to be implemented by the cwA.
In addition' spx's long review time affects the time period for the "next" triennial review and it's not
clear when the last triennial actually ends and when the next should begin.
3eff recommends the timeline should be that this triennial review is deemed "over" when EPA completes
their required consultation with ospws. EPA has only conditionally approved
our submitted packaged based on ospws consultation. once pws consultation is formally complete, then we
can start the ~5 year clock" for the next triennial.
Impaired waters List, 303{d} — we met the April I' 2016 deadline to submit the ]03{d) list to EPA, as
well as justification materials for why we didn't list certain waters. we would appreciate spx to
thoughtfully consider the white paper entitled: ~water Quality Assessment method for Toxics^ This is
the wc justification for not listing waters that spx insisted go on the list during the 2014 submittal.
If EPA does not consider this as adequate justification, then the state and EPA will be at odds on what
should be on the ]O]{d} list.
Reclassifications — this program has been robust and we have worked on a number of these projects over
the years. currently' we have several in the works. we thank EPA for their partnership/involvement on
these and will continue to keep staff in the loop as these move along. Existing water reclassifications
are the Lower cape pear River swamp rerlass, Lake zames water supply reclass]
variances — chloride variances for pickle companies and color variance for evergreen paper company.
These variances will be required to be examined under the new variance review process due to the recent
federal regulation changes.
we would appreciate spx's understanding for efficiency and streamlining during these variance renewals
for these long-standing permits for companies that have existed for decades.
Nutrient criteria Development - we appreciate EPA staff involvement on the mc's science Advisory
Committee that is looking at nutrient criteria. we've made good progress on the mCnp milestones, and it's
important that EPA stay involved at this level. {mainly so they can continue to see how difficult and
complex this topic is, and so that they have some ownership on the outcomes).
Laboratory
All NC wrocs dischargers classified as both major and whnur' were exempt from the oMn-Qx PT study program
as of may 2009. wc permittees are not required to order Discharge monitoring Report -Quality Assurance
(oMn-QA) study pr samples and, therefore, are not responsible for reporting data for their contract
laboratories any longer' do not have to alter their routine sample results reporting scheme by completing
the oMn-QA study forms, have multiple options for ordering pr samples (e.g.' can order low-level chlorine
pTs which more closely represent routine analyses) and can participate at any time of the year as long as
our PT deadline is met.
EPA x4 audits the lab every 5 years to maintain this exemption — audit is set for 3une' 2016.
Grants
most awards are being received more timely than in the past; except for the underground Injection grant.
To date, we have received only $22,230 of the total $I10'000 grant award.
Need the remainder prior to our fiscal year close out in zune.
105 Funds - appreciate the timeline that was shared during the "Kickoff" call. we need EPA to meet their
obligations to distribute materials during those timeframes. we're monitoring the commitments.
319* and 205j grants are both in good shape and good stead W/R4.
3ust received the 319/wPs program satisfactory progress determination from n4 for pYIh, which is
a required green light for them to pass the grant funds on to us.
Also just got word of final determination that Congressional rescissions will not affect the
FY16 award amount, which will come in at $3.66m (vs. last year's $3.50m).
OEQ-CFVV_00019614

* the one qualifier on 319 status is this — the satisfactory progress determination did include a
statement of concern and caution. we are proposing to rely on a staffing levels exemption option for fy16
for the 5rd year running.
This option is provided in the new (2014) national wps Program guidance' but very few states nationwide
have used it and the region does not like it. It allows for exception to the max use of 50% of the grant
for positions and
other 'program' needs. Going over 5O% ruts into the watershed restoration implementation side. The
exemption relies on a state showing that they are spending an additional 100% of the annual grant total
(spx 60% + state 40% match)
from other state funds for watershed restoration work in approved impaired watersheds. This will be the
]rd year we've done so on the strength of ovrF projects. our staff concern is based on the fact that
we're relying heavily on chance
in terms of where such projects are funded, since our 319-appruved watersheds amount to maybe ^10% of the
state's land area.
3ay'snotes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
owa items
Public water supply (safe Drinking water Act)
Good working relationship with EPA n4 staff. Appreciate their participation in wc operator schools
and training to our staff for the Revised Total coliform Rule.
Lead in drinking water — we have asked that EPA include the data extraction criteria for any spreadsheet
that we are asked to complete.
spreadsheets were given for us to respond to regarding lead with systems where some had never had an
exceedence or had one decades ago.
n4 did not know what the spreadsheet was designed to rapture (provided by *q). ultimately it was
supposed to capture action level exceedences
in the last 5 years' but the list EPA gave us' which we had to spend much time researching' was junk.
Wasted a lot of our time. z know we need to respond to cpx to help them meet their needs, but they need
to do better up front.
So anytime EPA has a query that they want us to respond to, they need to include the query criteria.
Then we can run our own query and give them
the data they really want, or at least understand how to answer the questions.
Concern over EPA pressure on us to require system response to non -regulatory items. we do not have the
authority to require water system action because we decide we think such action is a good idea. we have
to follow the regs. we can make recommendations to systems. example is the forthcoming revised health
advisory on ppos/rpoA. z believe that if their analysis shows the health concern is significant enough
to try to get states to compel system action' even when the contaminant is in the established regulatory
development prncess, then they also need to be taking every action which would include stepping up the
regulatory development process. In other words, if they decide a chemical is problematic, they should
focus first on their owm appropriate response toward an appropriate regulation. If it is not significant
enough for them to adjust their own timetable' why should they ask or expect states to take on that role?
Remember that regulations are based on more than just a health advisory number with no context.
EPA is supposed to be working on sanitary survey training for states' getting them on an
ongoing basis in n4. we still need that.
Permitting
Praise lately Region 4 staff has been timely in response to correspondence and meetings. one example is
that following conference calls spx has been sending by e-mail a summary of discussions and agreements.
There also seems to be more staff willingness to have a solutions based approach (a recent example is
permitting strategy following triennial standards approval).
A remaining issue is a need to have all states in the region treated similarly for similar issues. we
also need to work together better on burdensome new issues or rule - good example is e-reporting
implementation where the states have a federal mandate but are resource constrained and may need Regional
help for implementation.
would like to see better and more timely enforcement partnership. seems like some sites we can't seem
assistance in enforcement and on other sites EPA is doing enforcement when we feel the issues have
already been resolved or are not of any significance.
Regional office
P|anning
Interest in EPA sharing information in these areas:
OEQ-CFVV_00019615

Nutrient management strategies that are working in Region zv
Poultry and nutrient issues across Region zv
Water supply, water withdrawal permitting and instream flow requirement issues in Region zv
Atmospheric nitrogen issues in Region zv
TmoL - we appreciate the cPA`s flexibility in officially recognizing alternatives to the traditional TmoL
that is in the new 2015 prioritization framework. This allows states to develop alternatives to TMoLs
{such as a water quality implementation plan}. Part of this new framework includes delaying TmoL
development if there is an implementation plan in place that is actually being implemented. we feel this
recognizes that a TMoL is not always the best tool to achieve water quality improvement/restoration,
especially where nonpoint sources are the primary contributor. we look forward to continue to implement
this new program.
Triennial Review of water quality standards — while the cpx review of the state's submitted package took
an entire year, owA formally allows EPA 60 days to approve and 90 days to disapprove a submitted
standard. This reality of EPA taking an entire year to review and conditionally approve the package
resulted in a "waiting" period on a number of implementation and monitoring fronts that affect future
assessment ability. Not good but not much we can do about it except move forward. z would recommend that
EPA not take longer than the required tineframe to approve/disapprove future submittals. As a thought
for the "next" time we adopt standards rules, z recommend that the state set an effective date
approximately 90 days out, to allow the standards to become effective in the state administrative code
concurrent with the deadline for EPA to approve/disapprove the rules. This would avoid confusion of
what is printed in the state's administrative code versus what is actually allowed to be implemented by
the cWx.
In addition, spA's long review time affects the time period for the "next" triennial review and it's not
clear when the last triennial actually ends and when the next should begin.
z recommend the timeline should be that this triennial review is deemed "over" when EPA completes their
required consultation with ospws. EPA has only conditionally approved
our submitted packaged based on ospws consultation. Once pws consultation is formally complete' then we
can start the '`] year clock" for the next triennial.
Impaired waters List. 305(d) — we met the April I, 2016 deadline to submit the 303(d) list to cnx, as
well as justification materials for why we didn't list certain waters. we would appreciate EPA to
thoughtfully consider the white paper entitled: '`water Quality Assessment Method for Toxics^ This is
the NC justification for not listing waters that EPA insisted go on the list during the 2014 submittal.
If EPA does not consider this as adequate justification' then the state and EPA will be at odds on what
should be on the 503(d) list.
Reclassifications — this program has been robust and we have worked on a number of these projects over
the years. Currently, we have several in the works. we thank EPA for their partnership/involvement on
these and will continue to keep staff in the loop as these move along. Existing water reclassifications
are the Lower Cape Fear River swamp reclass' Lake 3ames water supply reclass)
variances — chloride variances for pickle companies. color variance for Evergreen paper company. hese
variances will be required to be examined under the new variance review process due to the recent
federal regulation changes. we would appreciate cPx's understanding for efficiency and streamlining
during these variance renewals for these long-standing permits for companies that have existed for
decades.
Nutrient criteria Development - we appreciate spx staff involvement on the wc`s science Advisory
Committee that is looking at nutrient criteria. we've made good progress on the mcop milestones' and it's
important that spx stay involved at this level. (mainly so they can continue to see how difficult and
complex this topic is, and so that they have some ownership on the outcomes).
Laboratory
In 2008, the North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification {mc ww/Gw Lc} program
appealed to the us EPA clean water enforcement Branch, water Protection Division for exemption from the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (mposs) opm-QA PT program. After a thorough review of the
NC ww/Gw LC program, it was deemed that the mcos0 [formerly mcosmn] proficiency testing program provides
adequate quality assurance to replace epA's omx-qx PT study program. Therefore' all wc dischargers
classified as both major and minor, are exempt from the oMn-QA PT study program as of May 13' 2009. wc
dischargers no longer receive omR-QA PT study reporting packages from spx. worth Carolina permittees are
not required to order Discharge monitoring Report -Quality Assurance (oMx-Qx) study PT samples and,
therefore' are not responsible for reporting data for their contract laboratories any longer, do not have
to alter their routine sample results reporting scheme by completing the oMn-QA study forms, have
multiple options for ordering PT samples {e.g.' can order low-level chlorine PTs which more closely
OEQ-CFVV_00019616

represent routine analyses) and can participate at any time of the year as lung as our PT deadline is
we are audited by EPA Region 4 every 3 years to maintain this exemption. They are coming in 3une, 2016.
Grants
most awards are being received more timely than in the past; except for the underground Injection grant.
To date, we have received only $22,230 of the total $I10'000 grant award. Need the remainder prior to
our fiscal year close out in 3une.
Good news:
319* and 205j grants are both in good shape and good stead */m4.
3ust received the 319/mps Program satisfactory progress determination from n4 for pvI6' which is
a required green light for them to pass the grant funds on to us.
Also just gut word of final determination that Congressional rescissions will not affect the
FY16 award amount, which will come in at $3.66m (vs. last year's $3.SOm).
^ the one qualifier on 3I9 status is this — the satisfactory progress determination did include a
statement of concern and caution (below) re.
We are proposing to rely on a staffing levels exemption option for fyI6 for the ]rd year running. This
option is provided in the new {2014} national mPs program guidance' but very few states nationwide have
used it and the region does not like it. It allows for exception to the max use of 50% of the grant for
positions and other 'program` needs. Going over 50% cuts into the watershed restoration implementation
side. The exemption relies on a state showing that they are spending an additional 100% of the annual
grant total (EPA 60% + state 40% match) from other state funds for watershed restoration work in approved
impaired watersheds. This will be the ]rd year we've done so on the strength of cwTp projects. our staff
concern is based on the fact that we're relying heavily on chance in terms of where such projects are
funded, since our 5I9-approved watersheds amount to maybe <lO% of the state's land area.
I06 Funds - appreciate the timeline that was shared during the "Kickoff ' call. we hope EPA sticks with
their obligations to distribute materials during those timeframes that were mentioned! we've marked our
calendars to be looking for certain items during certain times' based on the Kickoff call.
From: Thomas' Caroline s
Sent: Thursday' April 21, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Holman, Sheila /sheila.holman0ncdenr.gov<mailto:sheila.holman0ncdenr.gov>>; Davis, Tracy
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail],,; Scott, Michael
<[e-mail]^mailtu:michael.scott0ncdenr.gov,`; Zimmerman, 3ay
<[e-mail]<mailtn:jay.rimmermanWncdenr.gov,>; Davis, Braxton c
<nraxton.oavisNmcosma.Guv<mailtn:[e-mail]`,; Ellison, Michael
/michael.ellisonNncdenr.gov/mailto:[e-mail]>>; Colson, Kim
<[e-mail]<mailtn:[e-mail]>,
subject: EPA Issues- coo Friday
Division Directors,
Please remember that all sn^ issues for discussion on the 27th should be sent to 3nhn Evans by con
Friday.
Thank you,
Caroline
Caroline Thomas
Executive Assistant to Tom Reeder
wcosQ' office of the secretary
Cell: 9I9.508.5846
office: 919.707.9034
caruline.thomasNncdenr.gov<mailto:[e-mail],
1601 mail service center
Raleigh wc 27699-1601
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
OEQ-CFVV_00019617

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
OEQ-CFVV_00019618