Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft May 2024 WQC Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE May 8, 2024 Meeting Minutes MEETING BRIEF During the May 8, 2024 meeting of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee, the Committee: • Approved the draft March and April 2024 meeting minutes, • Approved proceeding to the EMC with proposed reclassification of portions of the Yadkin River, South Yadkin River, and associated tributaries to WS-IV Critical Area (CA) and WS-IV Protected Area (PA), • Heard an update on the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy Wastewater Rule, • Heard an update on the 2023-2025 Surface Water Quality Standards Triennial Review, and • Heard an update on the study of narrative standards per SL 2023-137(8). WQC MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE Steve Keen, Chair EMC Chair John Solomon, Ex-Officio Michael Ellison, Vice-Chair Joe Reardon Tim Baumgartner Kevin Tweedy Marion Deerhake Bill Yarborough DEQ STAFF & OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE EMC Commissioner Jill Weese EMC Commissioner Robin Smith Sarah Zambon, EMC Counsel Sushma Masemore, DEQ Assistant Secretary for Environment Richard Rogers, DWR Director Karen Higgins, DWR Paul Wojoski, DWR John Huisman, DWR Elizabeth Liebig, DWR Chris Ventaloro, DWR Jim Behmer, Salisbury-Rowan Utilities Director Adam Waters, Tar-Pamlico Basin Association Executive Director TABLE OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHPP Coastal Habitat Protection Plan Page 2 of 6 CWA Clean Water Act DWR or Division NC Division of Water Resources EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EMC or Commission NC Environmental Management Commission MCL maximum contaminant level NC North Carolina NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code NCGA North Carolina General Assembly NCGS North Carolina General Statutes NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OAH Office of Administrative Hearings OSBM Office of State Budget and Management PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of chemicals RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RRC Rules Review Commission SCM stormwater control measures SIU significant industrial user SNAP Stormwater Nitrogen and Phosphorus Tool SOC Special (Court) Order by Consent US United States WQC or Committee NC EMC Water Quality Committee WWTP wastewater treatment plant I. Preliminary Matters 1. Meeting called to order and notice provided of NCGS 138A-15 regarding conflict of interest: Chair Keen called the WQC meeting to order at 1:30pm and inquired about any known conflicts of interest. No conflicts were announced. 2. Approval of March 2024 and April 2024 meeting minutes: The Committee approved the draft March 2024 and draft April 2024 meeting minutes. Page 3 of 6 II. Action Item 1. Request Approval to Proceed with Proposed Reclassification of Portions of the Yadkin River, South Yadkin River, and Associated Tributaries to WS-IV Critical Area (CA) and WS-IV Protected Area (PA) (Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin) (Elizabeth Liebig, Division of Water Resources) Elizabeth Liebig, DWR, noted that this request was made by Salisbury-Rowan Utilities (SRU) because they seek to construct a new intake about 2100 feet downstream from their current intake. Ms. Liebig presented a flowchart describing the reclassification process. She said that the RIA is awaiting certification from OSBM. She noted federal and state legal requirements applicable to this reclassification proposal. She presented an aerial map of the planned relocation project showing the existing and proposed intakes, noting that the new intake is more resilient against floods. The new proposed intake would have the same level of withdrawals as the existing intake. She also noted considerations for the reclassification, explaining that the new recommended boundaries would help prevent pollution from entering the intake from upstream. She presented a map showing the proposed critical and protected areas. She said that DWR developed a “use and value” demonstration study based on the SRU proposed boundary. The study conducted monthly samples from four monitoring locations, including the proposed intake location. This study concluded that the waters in the study area met the WS-IV classification requirements. She also presented a table summarizing the waterbodies to be reclassified. She stated the draft RIA findings, noting that there would be no substantial economic impact. She also presented a projected timeline with EMC adoption potentially in January 2025. Commissioner Deerhake asked about a sand mine with an outfall 1400 feet upstream from the proposed intake, and Ms. Liebig noted that mine wouldn’t impact water quality or the ability of SRU to treat the water. Vice-Chair Ellison and Ms. Liebig discussed the scope and size of the newly protected areas. Jim Behmer, SRU director, stated that they have grant funding with a local match that is time-sensitive which is why the timeline was proposed as it was with a potential July 2024 EMC approval. A commissioner moved that the WQC approve proceeding to the EMC with request for public notice and hearing for the proposed amendments to 15A NCAC 02B .0309 Page 4 of 6 as requested in Attachment A of Ms. Liebig’s materials. Commissioner Reardon seconded that motion, and it passed unanimously. III. Information Items 1. Update on the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy Wastewater Rule (John Huisman, Division of Water Resources) John Huisman, DWR, began his presentation with some background regarding the Tar-Pamlico river basin, including a map of the river basin and its estuaries. He also provided a history of the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS) and the Tar-Pamlico Point Source Agreement (Agreement) which has been revised and renewed several times. He also showed a map of the 15 members of the Tar- Pamlico Basin Association (TPBA). Mr. Huisman noted the reasons DWR wants to codify the existing requirements of the Agreement to a rule, including that the requirements meet the APA definition of a rule. He also presented a rule readoption timeline with potential EMC adoption in March 2025. The current Agreement expires in June 2025. Vice-Chair Ellison asked about the extent phosphorus would be part of the rule, and Mr. Huisman said the Agreement contains a phosphorus cap but not an offset rate. He said this process allows DWR to address that issue by including an offset rate for phosphorus and nitrogen. Commissioner Reardon asked if converting this Agreement to a rule would have any impact on the ability of the TPBA members to work together, and Mr. Huisman said that a rule would provide stability and that there is a good working relationship between DWR and the TPBA. Adam Waters, TPBA executive director, briefly addressed the Committee. He noted that he has worked with DWR in the past in his role with the City of Washington and that the TPBA is currently working with DWR as partners to finalize the rule text. 2. Update on the 2023-2025 Surface Water Quality Standards Triennial Review (Paul Wojoski, Division of Water Resources) Paul Wojoski, DWR, began his presentation by explaining the meaning and purpose of RIAs. He listed the topics to be included in the 2023-2025 Triennial Review RIA. He then explained how regulatory programs use Water Quality Standards, focusing on the NPDES Wastewater Discharge Program. He also provided an example of fish Page 5 of 6 consumption human health criteria parameters, noting that 5 of the 12 are becoming more stringent, 2 are becoming less stringent, and 5 are not currently in use as they relate to legacy pesticides like DDT. Mr. Wojoski noted the benefits of updating North Carolina’s human health criteria and exposure factors, including benefits to health and productivity and reduced mortality. He also noted that putting limits on 1,4-dioxane discharges saves money in treatment costs for drinking water systems. Commissioner Baumgartner asked if the RIA focused only on costs to the state, and Mr. Wojoski noted that it also includes costs borne by private entities that would be impacted by the standards as well as costs borne by local governments. Vice-Chair Ellison asked Mr. Wojoski if he was submitting the RIA to the OSBM for their approval, and he answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Baumgartner asked why the RIA goes to OSBM for approval before the WQC can see a draft version. Mr. Wojoski stated that the EMC and WQC have expressed their desire to see a robust and complete RIA, and that the RIA isn’t a full and complete package until OSBM approves it. Commissioner Deerhake said the Commission is sending mixed messages about RIAs to DWR staff, noting that sometimes it requests a draft RIA and sometimes a complete one. Mr. Wojoski also said that the RIA was a DEQ-only document without any EMC/WQC conclusions in it in response to a question by Vice-Chair Ellison. Chair Keen noted that 1,4-dioxane is an issue and the Committee needs that piece of the puzzle to proceed. Commissioner Deerhake noted that the .33 µ/L number isn’t measured at the outfall, and Mr. Wojoski confirmed that effluent permit limits don’t have those numbers in them. Commissioner Baumgartner noted that 1,4-dioxane is a solvent used in many products, and he asked if there are any alternatives to 1,4-dioxane. He also asked if those alternatives were worse, what they cost, if they had any downsides, and if there were any incentives for manufacturers to use that alternative. He said he’d like to see answers to these questions. Commissioner Deerhake noted that in Greensboro, 1,4-dioxane was an unintended reaction byproduct, not a deliberately chosen part of the manufacturing process. 3. Update on the Study of Narrative Standards per SL 2023-137(8) (Karen Higgins, Division of Water Resources) Page 6 of 6 Karen Higgins, DWR, responded to questions and comments previously submitted by Commissioners. These questions/comments and their responses are available online with the May 2024 WQC meeting materials. Commissioner Baumgartner noted that Minnesota uses a 10-5 cancer risk level and asked if North Carolina could adopt that level given that EPA has approved that level for Minnesota. Ms. Higgins said that different states have different levels as needed to protect designated uses, and that if North Carolina were to propose a 10-5 level, EPA would compare North Carolina to itself, not Minnesota. He also asked for more explanation of the difference between narrative and numeric criteria, and Ms. Higgins noted that .0208 has a narrative translator that shows how to calculate effluent permit limits. Chris Ventaloro, DWR, also responded, noting that the narrative standard itself is the rule language that appears in the .0208 rule. This narrative statement provides directions for how to calculate derived numeric criteria that are then used to develop permit limits. Mr. Ventaloro, Ms. Higgins, and DEQ Assistant Secretary Sushma Masemore then had further discussion with Commissioners about this matter. Noting the complexity of these matters, Chair Keen said that the WQC needs to fully understand the matters coming before it, and that includes deep dives into the weeds. IV. Conclusion DWR Director Rogers noted that DWR stands ready to work with the WQC and the EMC. Chair Keen adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:10pm.