Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved AQC Meeting Summary_12July20231 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AIR QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY July 12, 2023 Archdale Building- Ground Floor Hearing Room 9:00 – 10:30 A.M. AQC MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE Mr. Chris Duggan, AQC Acting Chair Ms. Marion Deerhake Ms. Yvonne Bailey Dr. H. Kim Lyerly Mr. Charlie S. Carter Ms. Elizabeth (Jill) Weese Ms. Donna Davis OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Ms. Robin Smith, EMC Chair Mr. Kevin Tweedy, EMC Mr. David Anderson, EMC Mr. Phillip Reynolds, EMC Counsel Ms. Pat Harris, EMC Mr. Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ Director Mr. Steve P. Keen, EMC DEQ Staff Mr. John (JD) Solomon, EMC Members of the public PRELIMINARY MATTERS Agenda Item I-1, Call to Order and the State Government Ethics Act, N.C.G.S. §138A-15 AQC Acting Chair Duggan called the meeting to order and inquired, per General Statute §138A-15, as to whether any member knows of any known conflict of interest or appearance of conflict with respect to matters before the EMC’s AQC. None stated. MEETING BRIEF During the July 12, 2023, meeting, the Air Quality Committee (AQC) of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) heard: • Informational Item: Air Quality Section Chiefs - Program Updates 2 Agenda Item I-2, Review and Approval of the May 10, 2023, Meeting Minutes Acting Chair Duggan requested approval of the May 10, 2023, Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Carter made the motion, and Commissioner Lyerly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved without objection. RULEMAKING CONCEPTS None. ACTION ITEMS None. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Agenda Item V-1, Air Quality Section Chiefs – Program Updates DAQ Director Mike Abraczinskas introduced this information item as the first in a series titled “Get to Know DAQ”. Two of the DAQ Section Chiefs provided a brief overview of the tasks, responsibilities, and current work of their respective sections, with discussion following each presentation. Permits Section Chief – Mark Cuilla Description: Mr. Mark Cuilla, DAQ Permitting Section Chief, provided an overview of the permit application trends, the Title V program review, staffing, permit review timelines, and environmental justice (EJ). An explanation of how permitting fits in amongst the three DAQ sections was given, describing how permits implement rules generated by the Planning Section and then are utilized by the compliance (Technical Services) section. Graphics illustrated the current facility counts, application receipt and close-out trends, and the current breakdown of application types. Currently, the Permitting Section has staffing challenges including several upcoming retirements. About forty applications are in the backlog of Title V renewals past the 18-month statutory requirement for permit issuance, which DAQ is working to resolve. Tips were given about what to do while waiting for a permit, for example, being allowed to add utilities to the site. In addition to the public participation rule requirements, the DAQ enhances public outreach with certain applications that are required to go through the EJ review process. The EJ tool was shown to explain how public outreach suggestions are decided upon based on the surrounding areas of the applicant. Department recommendations may include a full EJ report, fact sheets, or translations. Discussion: Commissioner Carter asked about the permit backlog, workload, staffing, and ideas to reduce permitting timelines and backlog. Mr. Cuilla responded that most states are behind, but staffing shortages are the primary reason for the predicament. He clarified some of the staff members and their positions, along with recent promotions and an expected retirement among the Permit Section supervisors. Applications with a faster timeline or where a facility is waiting on the permit to begin construction have been taking priority over long-term Title V renewals, which account for about half of the backlog. All small and Clean Air Act synthetic minor source permits are handled at the DEQ regional offices, with an 8-year life of the permit renewals and 5 years for Title V permit renewals. The workload of Title V permitting program is assisted by the regional offices, as needed. Director Abraczinskas noted combining applications for a single facility has also been an option to speed up permit processes. 3 Commissioner Lyerly asked if there is any interaction with other agencies regarding the medical conditions dashboard for EJ. Mr. Cuilla responded that there is no other interaction with sister agencies, and it is important to note the EJ review is demographic in nature, only to identify the additional public engagement that should be undertaken. The EJ review does not comment on the technical aspects of the project or cumulative effects. Permitting is done on the merit of an individual facility’s emissions profile. Commissioner Carter asked how much time the EJ review takes to complete. Mr. Cuilla responded that the EJ document is created outside of air quality by an EJ team at the Department level. The EJ process begins when an application is received and DAQ informs the EJ team that it triggers an EJ review, and the EJ document is then created to be ready by the time the draft permit prepared by DAQ is ready for public notice. Commissioner Carter asked who conducts the EJ analysis. Director Abraczinskas clarified that the Department has an EJ team that conducts the analysis in coordination with the DAQ’s EJ coordinator, currently Deputy Director Taylor Hartsfield. Commissioner Deerhake asked if “smalls” refer to state-level pollutants. Mr. Cuilla confirms this meaning of smalls and notes it means non-Title V and non-major facilities. Commissioner Deerhake asked if now that permit reviews incorporate EJ, are regional cumulative air quality impacts also assessed during permit reviews. Mr. Cuilla clarified that it is not routine to include a cumulative impact during a technical analysis. Sometimes a cumulative review is done at the discretion of the Director to analyze more data in the area surrounding the facility. A partial or “pseudo” cumulative review is also done during the modeling portion of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) applications, as required by that federal Clean Air Act program. Director Abraczinskas added that looking at a variety of media is helpful to add more understanding than the usual permitting process includes. Commissioner Carter asked what kind of air analysis or modeling DAQ conducts. Mr. Cuilla responded that air toxics modeling is available and used. Commissioner Carter also asked about polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the latest update on what DAQ knows about it. Director Abraczinskas responded that potential sources are being researched with the goal of gaining awareness. The Director stated that it would be useful to be able to get information from applicants if they are in a certain source category to understand the likelihood of PFAS. He noted that the health science on the air side has less studies than water and ingestion routes, but it is expected that the science will catch up for the inhalation routes, with increasing research over time. This pattern was also seen for other air toxics. EMC Chair Smith asked how compliance monitoring works with registration-only or exempt facilities, given that permits are typically the vehicle for getting monitoring and reporting information. Mr. Cuilla said that the allowances for becoming registered or exempt are limited to non-Title V facilities. They still have an identification number, are subject to inspections and must keep records of the levels air pollutants emitted. EMC Chair Smith followed up by asking if there is a significant percentage of facilities that produce environmental impact statements (EIS). Mr. Cuilla responded that the impact statements are not part of the material that is received for permits. Director Abraczinskas responded that there may be a very loose connection, and EISs can be helpful but may not contain all the data necessary for a technical evaluation. EMC Chair Smith stated that the EIS has a broader scope and may capture information that is unrelated to technical aspects of the permit but may speak to social or community impacts. EMC Chair Smith commented that Title V permit renewals may be helpful in determining PFAS concerns. Mr. Cuilla responded that there has recently been a disclosure permit condition added with the renewals to find known users or emitters of PFAS. This requires applicants to let DAQ know if they find out about any 4 PFAS at their facility. For more recent renewals, DAQ has added testing conditions for incoming raw materials. EMC Chair Smith emphasized the importance of reducing the backlog of renewals since they provide an opportunity to learn about a facility and identify PFAS concerns. She followed up with another question, asking if there is ongoing research about the relationship of PFAS in air and in groundwater or surface water. Director Abraczinskas responded that the air emissions pathway is certainly important in terms of potential downwind groundwater contamination or violations, and North Carolina has been learning more about this topic in recent years. Modest amounts of PFAS emissions can lead to significant violations for groundwater downwind. There is no ambient air quality monitoring for PFAS and a lack of available testing methods; therefore, research has been challenging and little is known about the effects of PFAS in air. However, the DAQ has a network of air monitors for measuring PFAS in wet and dry deposition downwind of a particular source, as well as a background network at each of the seven regional offices. PFAS is an important topic that will continue to be evaluated. EMC Chair Smith commented that it raises legal questions on whether the right statutory language exists to allow air permitting programs to be effective in achieving that impact. Commissioner Deerhake commented that PFAS deposition continues to be of interest to her and noted that cross-media issues have been on AQC agendas in the past, particularly with respect to atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Technical Services Section Chief – Steve Hall Mr. Steve Hall, Technical Services Section Chief, provided an overview of the organization, staff, and various responsibilities of the Section. North Carolina received $92 million as part of the Volkswagen (VW) Settlement. There is about one-third of the money left within the last phase of funding through the VW Settlement to invest in various eligible grant projects from 2022-2024. In Phase 2, there was expanded outreach for historically under-resourced counties in North Carolina. Funding has been allocated to help increase the number of school buses and direct current (DC) charging ports for electric vehicles and to update existing charging infrastructure. Fifteen percent (15%) of the total funds were allowed to go to zero- emission infrastructure around the state. Of the 15% allocated to zero-emission infrastructure, around $700,000 to $800,000 remain and will go to state agency projects, with applications being taken through September 1, 2023. Regarding PFAS, there has been ongoing research and stack testing. COVID-19 impacted the number and nature of compliance inspections over the last couple of years. Post-COVID-19, the number of inspections remained about the same due to staffing shortages. Focusing on Title V and synthetic minor inspections allowed the number of inspections to rise again to pre-COVID-19 levels. The Technical Services Section also provides technical support throughout the Division and online staff training. The DAQ’s Laserfiche digital document repository was launched in November of 2022, and all paper records will have to be transitioned to digital format, with new documents received being automatically transitioned. DAQ is trying to change the rules for all permit applications to allow them to be submitted digitally at the beginning of the process. Discussion: Commissioner Weese asked how an issue with an exempt source gets addressed. Mr. Hall responded that just because a facility qualifies for a permit exemption or registration, they could either be pulled back into a permit under Director’s decision if that is the best mechanism to be able to monitor and keep records, or the source could be issued a compliance letter to get them back on track. Commissioner Weese asked in a follow-up question if there is any other enforcement action that can be taken, such as a Notice of Violation (NOV). Mr. Hall responded yes. He explained that if an NOV letter is sent and the owner/operator does not meet the requirements, enforcement can be conducted based on what is put in the enforcement letter. The 5 deciding factor is usually if it is a long-term issue versus a short-term issue. Director Abraczinskas added that the DAQ’s tiered enforcement policy also applies to these facilities, so severity of the issue plays a role, as well as any federal regulations that are being violated. Commissioner Weese asked another follow- up question about what would be cited if there is a need to litigate violation of federal regulation, and Mr. Hall responded that the federal regulation itself would be cited. Commissioner Deerhake asked regarding the VW program if there will be a closing report that explains the benefits to the state and if other information can be included to enlighten lawmakers or policymakers about how to improve access to the types of vehicles that were funded through the VW settlement program, as well as the challenges that citizens face economically with these transitions. Mr. Hall responded that the numbers, success stories, and lessons learned will be shared. Director Abraczinskas added that the Phase 1 report is available on the DAQ website. The Phase 2 report is potentially a few years away from being completed. There is a process to be completed after DAQ awards VW settlement funding to an applicant, including ordering and delivery of the electric vehicle, demonstration that the older vehicle is out of service and destroyed, and then reimbursement from DAQ for the electric vehicle. Commissioner Deerhake commented that she is also interested in the sociological side of what did and did not work to motivate grant applications. She also requested a definition of historically under-resourced counties. Director Abraczinskas responded that the report on the website contains that information, as well. EMC Chair Smith asked whether DAQ has seen any correlation between open burning violations and changes to open burning State Law, which has become more permissive over the last several years and reduced the instances where prior permits are required. Mr. Hall responded that possibly the last 10 years have seen more violations than the previous 10-year period, adding that an open burning outreach team has been reinstituted to analyze some of the trends and conduct outreach for areas with violations. With an increase in education, there may be an initial uptick in complaints, but hopefully in the long term there will be a decline in violations. Director Abraczinskas added that looking through the lens of the public and complaints, there are more complaints seen recently because the setback distance has shrunk, although many have been found to be legal open burns. It has been a significant burden on staff and is an important issue that will continue to be investigated. Commissioner Carter asked to confirm that legal open burns only include vegetative material, and Mr. Hall confirmed this is correct with no synthetic materials being allowed to be burned. Commissioner Carter added a story about a complaint of wood burning near a soccer field several years ago when the setback distance was 1,000 feet, stating that even legal burning can be an issue for public health. Commissioner Deerhake asked what the budget is, including staff, for mobile source emissions versus stationary sources and if the mobile source budget will need to be increased given the shift in each sector’s contributing emissions to air quality. Director Abraczinskas responded that on the stationary source side, there is an approved program from the federal government to carry out all of those activities, from permitting to compliance, which contain significant responsibilities. On the mobile source side, the authority is mostly maintained at a federal level for putting in place emission reduction measures, so there are very few areas where States have the authority to do so. In North Carolina, there are a few, including the vehicle emissions inspections and maintenance program. Commissioner Deerhake asked if the State is allowed to do community outreach regarding reducing mobile source emissions and Director Abraczinskas confirmed that the state is allowed to do this. 6 Agenda Item V-2, Director’s Remarks (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) The Director provided an update on the Division’s staffing resources. There are two new supervisors for DAQ, Mark Yoder as the new Air Quality Analysis Branch supervisor in the Permitting Section, and Jeremy Pope as the new Projects and Procedures Branch supervisor in the Ambient Monitoring Section. Succession and continuity planning is a top priority of the Division. The Director noted that his full remarks contained updates on three additional items, which he opted to cover at the full EMC meeting on July 13, 2023. CLOSING REMARKS AND MEETING ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Duggan noted the next meeting of the AQC is scheduled for September 13, 2023, and adjourned the meeting.