Presentation_InfoItem_02L-PFAS-RIA_May2024_Montie

15A NCAC 02L .0202 Groundwater Quality Standards PFAS RulemakingRegulatory Impact Analysis
Jessica Montie
Division of Waste Management
May 2024 GWWMC Informational Item
2
Regulatory Impact Analysis Overview
•Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides a representation of likely
or expected impacts resulting from the rule amendment.
•The RIA compares the proposed rule amendment to baseline.
•RIA Cost/Benefit Analysis Baseline - Existing Regulations:
•N.C.G.S. Ch 130A and 143
•15A NCAC Chapters 02 and 13
•02L .0100 and .0200, with PQL as existing standard for PFAS compounds,
is applicable to all DEQ Programs
•Other rules may be program-specific
3
Regulatory Impact Analysis Overview
•DWM Programs Affected
•Hazardous Waste Facilities
•Solid Waste Sanitary Landfills
•Inactive Hazardous Sites
•UST Soil Remediation Sites (and spills)
4
Regulatory Impact Analysis Overview
•DWM Implementation Plan and timeline to address PFAS contamination will be included in RIA for information purposes.
•Implementation and timeline are considered in an RIA for the timing of
costs and benefits to show when would they be applied.
•Because PFAS is a relatively new issue, the plan will also be included to
provide guidance on how DEQ intends to address PFAS.
•DEQ has authority under existing regulations to move forward with
addressing PFAS contamination.
•Plan to address PFAS contamination will be implemented the same way
under the existing rule or the proposed rule.
DWM Plan Implementation Timeline
5
Department of Environmental Quality - Waste Management
•By end of 2024: Expect to complete initial screening against priority industry list and notice to complete initial monitoring for PFAS.
•2025-26: Identify sites with exceedances of groundwater quality standards for the eight PFAS compounds (either PQL or proposed standards).
•2026-27: If warranted at sites where PFAS exceedances are identified, begin steps for assessment and remediation (aside from immediate actions needed).
•Completion of remediation will vary by site and will depend on site-specific factors and type of remediation.
6
Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach
•Third-party consultant (Brown and Caldwell) assisted with calculation of cost
curves for pump and treat systems for PFAS compounds, if warranted.
•Considered capital expenditure (CapEx) and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs for:
•Extraction well installation
•Pretreatment options to remove solids
•Two shelf-ready treatment technologies and combinations
•Site-specific variables and multiples options for treatment would need to be
considered at a site, which may also require evaluations from licensed
professionals, to determine site-specific costs.
Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach
7
Potential Savings
•Estimate the potential savings of the proposed PFAS regulatory change for some sites where savings could apply.
Existing Expenses
•Estimate the potential expenses associated with PFAS treatment/ remediation under existing rules, if warranted.
Reduced need to Conduct Site Assessment and/or Monitoring
Reduced need to Install Treatment/ Remediation System
Reduced Remediation Timeframe
Expenses for Site Assessment and Monitoring if warranted
CapEx for Treatment/ Remediation System if warranted
Expense for Continued O&M of Treatment System, if warranted
Quantitative Cost/Benefit Analysis Summary
8
•Quantitative Costs/Benefits to Regulated Community
•Costs - No additional costs to the regulated community, but potential for future avoided costs, as compared to baseline because:
•Proposed standards for 6 of the 8 PFAS compounds are less stringent than the standard under existing rule (PQL) - regulatory relief.
•Proposed standards for the other 2 of the 8 PFAS compounds (PFOA and PFOS) are lower than the PQL, however the existing rule states that in this circumstance, the PQL will continue to be enforced as the standard – currently no change from baseline.
•If the PQLs for PFOA and PFOS decrease in the future below the proposed calculated standards, the proposed calculated standards will be less stringent than the current existing rule standard (PQL) – future regulatory relief.
Quantitative Cost/Benefit Analysis Summary
9
•Quantitative Costs/Benefits to Regulated Community – Capital Expenses
•Benefit – Potential for future avoided costs for the regulated community (compared to baseline) at sites that fall under these circumstances:
•activities at the facility are the source of the PFAS exceedances,
•remediation is warranted,
•groundwater extraction and treatment is (or would be) the selected remedy,
•one or more of the six PFAS compounds (where the proposed standards are above the PQL) are detected above the PQL in groundwater, but below the new/proposed standard,
•one or more of those six PFAS compounds are the drivers for remediation,
•no other PFAS compounds are detected above the PQL (aside from the six PFAS compounds where standards are proposed above the PQL).
•Potential for avoided costs and when they would apply would depend on site-specific evaluations and treatment options that may have been selected if treatment would have been warranted.
Quantitative Cost/Benefit Analysis Summary
10
•Quantified Costs/Benefits to Regulated Community – O&M
•Benefit – Potential for future avoided costs for the regulated community (compared to baseline) at sites that fall under the same circumstances as the previous slide, but one or more of those 6 PFAS compounds are above the new/proposed standard:
•Where remediation is warranted and implemented, a higher standard means the site may meet the standard sooner during the remediation process.
•May result in future avoided costs for continued assessment monitoring and O&M.
•Site-specific evaluations of the impacts and/or effectiveness of ongoing treatment would need to be conducted to determine if future O&M costs could be avoided at any sites.
Quantitative Cost/Benefit Analysis Summary
11
Human Health Risks/Impacts
•The proposed standards are health-based values that take into account lifetime risks to human health from consumption of a contaminant.
•The current PQLs are based on laboratory technology and capability.
•Neither the current PQLs nor the proposed standards surpass the risk management levels established in Rule 15A NCAC 02L .0202(d).
•As such, the proposed standards are considered at least as protective of human health as the PQL values based on laboratory capability.
Potential Costs and Benefits from the Proposed AmendmentFor One Hypothetical DWM-Regulated Site
12
( * ) Range of potential avoided assessment and remediation costs over time for one hypothetical DWM-regulated site, if a site fell under the specific circumstances outlined in Slide 9.
Original Costs obtained were in November 2023 dollars, but have been escalated at 2.42% for CapEx and 2% for O&M. Table assumes Year 1 is 2026 per the DWM implementation schedule. Net Present Value (NPV) total is in 2024 dollars.
The year that remediation would have begun is site-specific. Remediation timeframe would also be site-specific, but annual avoided costs would continue until remediation would have been completed, if warranted under existing rules.
Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
ADDED COSTS FROM PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Additional expenses to the regulated community to address
PFAS as compared to baseline/existing rule $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CHANGES TO HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Changes to human health impacts as compared to
baseline/existing rule $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO REGULATED COMMUNITY FROM PROPOSED AMENDMENT *
Potential Avoided Future Capital Expenditures at One Hypothetical DWM-Regulated Site
• Construction of additional 1 to 4 Groundwater Wells for
either assessment monitoring or extraction, if needed
$13,054 to
$78,322 ------------------
• Treatment System Construction $156,858 to
$883,133 ------------------
Potential Avoided Future Annual O&M and Monitoring Expenses at One Hypothetical DWM-Regulated Site
• Adding PFAS Analysis to Routine Monitoring for 3-25
Wells, 1 or 2 Events
$2,303 to
$38,034
$2,349 to
$38,795
$2,396 to
$39,571
$2,444 to
$40,362
$2,493 to
$41,169
$2,543 to
$41,993
$2,594 to
$42,832
$2,645 to
$43,689
$2,698 to
$44,563
$2,752 to
$45,454
• Groundwater Well O&M (1 to 4 wells)$2,494 to
$9,975
$2,544 to
$10,175
$2,595 to
$10,378
$2,647 to
$10,586
$2,700 to
$10,797
$2,754 to
$11,013
$2,809 to
$11,233
$2,865 to
$11,458
$2,922 to
$11,687
$2,981 to
$11,921
• Treatment System O&M $59,428 to
$301,383
$60,617 to
$307,411
$61,829 to
$313,559
$63,065 to
$319,830
$64,327 to
$326,227
$65,613 to
$332,751
$66,926 to
$339,406
$68,264 to
$346,194
$69,629 to
$353,118
$71,022 to
$360,181
TOTAL QUANTIFIED BENEFITS TO REGULATED
COMMUNITY IN POTENTIAL FUTURE AVOIDED COSTS
AT ONE HYPOTHETICAL DWM-REGULATED SITE *
$208,670 to
$1,156,140
$65,510 to
$356,380
$66,820 to
$363,507
$68,156 to
$370,778
$69,519 to
$378,193
$70,910 to
$385,757
$72,328 to
$393,472
$73,774 to
$401,342
$75,250 to
$409,368
$76,755 to
$417,556
Ten-Year Net Present Value, 7% discount rate, 2024 dollars $604,975 to $3,323,557
Qualitative Cost/Benefit Summary
13
•Benefit - Regulatory Certainty for Regulated Community
•The standards should assist all parties with decision-making and planning for the type of remediation (including risk-based procedures), and how long remediation (if warranted) may need to be conducted, because it will provide confidence that any future change to the numeric standard that might impact their plans for ongoing remediation would be subjected to the rulemaking process.
Status
14
•The Regulatory Impact Analysis has been submitted to the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) for review.
Thank you
15
Jessica Montie
Environmental Program Consultant
[e-mail]
[phone]
DWM