Info Item 3 - 2B PFAS Standards Presentation

Proposed Surface Water Quality PFAS Standards, Implementation Plan
and Regulatory Impact Analysis
Water Quality Committee - July 10, 2024
Julie Grzyb, Deputy Director, DWR
Chris Ventaloro, Water Quality Standards Coordinator, DWR
Stephanie C. Bolyard, PhD, Senior Engineer to the Assistant Secretary, ADM
Background - Previous Surface Water Quality Standard
WQC and EMC Presentations
November 2023 EMC Meeting
•Information Items - Proposed PFAS Toxicological Summaries and Potential Affected Sources
Link: edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?id=2617341&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
January 2024 WQC Meeting
•Information Items - Implementation Strategy for Proposed PFAS Surface Water Quality Standards; Cost
and Benefits Analysis Approach
Link: edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?id=2617413&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
March 2024 WQC Meeting
•Information Item - Implementation Plan Timeline; DWR Stakeholder Meetings Overview and Feedback
Link: edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?id=2617353&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
May 2024 WQC Meeting
•Information Item – Proposed surface water standards, implementation plan update and cost benefit
analysis
Link: edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?id=2617363&dbid=0&repo=WaterResources
2
Presentation Overview
•Proposed 02B PFAS Surface Water Standards
•NPDES Implementation Rules and Update
•Fiscal Analysis Snapshot
•Request to Proceed with Rulemaking
3
Proposed 02B PFAS Surface Water Standards
4
Types of North Carolina Water Quality Standards
Federal and State Rules
55
Groundwater Standards
(protect resource)
Surface Water Standards
(protect resource)
Drinking Water Standards
(treatment)
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
State Regulations
PFAS Currently in Drinking Water in NC
6
Population
with DW
ABOVE MCLs
3,445,635
36%
Population with
DW BELOW
MCLs
6,196,357
64%
NC Population on Public Water Systems
(9,641,992 people)
Estimated
Population with
DW ABOVE MCLs
199,349
25%
Population
with DW
BELOW MCLs
598,047
75%
NC Population on Private Wells
(797,396 people)
NC Population in 2022
PFAS Currently in Drinking Water in NC
7
Total
Population with
DW ABOVE
MCLs
3,644,984
35%
Total
Population with
DW BELOW
MCLs
6,794,404
65%
Total NC Population
(10,439,388 people)
NC Population in 2022
Over 3.6 million North
Carolinians are estimated to
have PFAS in their drinking
water ABOVE the federal MCLs
Proposed PFAS Compounds for Surface Water Standards
Development
8
PFAS Compound Acronym
1 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid PFOS
2 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA
3 Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HFPO-DA (GenX)
4 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBS
5 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA
6 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS
7 Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA
8 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA
Why these specific PFAS Compounds?
1.Health effects of all compounds are published in peer-reviewed
scientific studies and have been evaluated by a federal agency
and other scientific experts
2.This health effects data supports development of a reference
dose and/or cancer slope factor
3.All compounds have been detected in NC’s environmental
media (for example: air, water, soil, and fish)
4.All compounds can be accurately measured by EPA Test
Method 1633
Upstream Impacts on Surface Water Intakes and
Drinking Water Treatment Burden
10
Pretreatment
Controls NC Surface Water Standards
Federal
Drinking
Water
Standards
How the Standards Are Derived
•PFAS numeric values determined as follows:
1.Derived per the procedures and calculations described in EPA’s
Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health (EPA-822-B-00-004, October 2000) and the exposure
values currently supported by EPA (EPA 820-F-15-001, June 2015) or,
2.Based on the 2024 EPA Safe Drinking Water Act PFAS Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
•PFAS standards are protective of both the water supply and fish tissue
consumption designated uses (for example: public drinking water
sources)
11
Toxicological Values for Standards Calculations
1.Reference Dose (RfD)
Value a person can be exposed to for a lifetime without health impacts
2.Cancer Slope/Potency Factor (CSF or CPF)
The cancer risk based on dose of exposure
3.Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF)or Bioconcentration Factor (BCF)
Value a chemical is taken up from water and diet (BAF) or water alone (BCF)
PFAS
Compound Reference Critical Health
Effects
Toxicity
Benchmarks and
Values Available
1 PFOS 2023 EPA Toxicity Assessment+Developmental and
Cardiovascular effects RfD,CSF,MCL
2 PFOA 2023 EPA Toxicity Assessment+Renal cell carcinomas RfD,CSF,MCL
3 HFPO-DA (GenX)2021 EPAToxicity Assessment+Liver effects RfD,MCL
4 PFBS 2021 EPAToxicity Assessment+Thyroid effects RfD
5 PFNA 2021 ATSDR**Toxicity Assessment+Developmental effects RfD^,MCL
6 PFHxS 2021 ATSDR**Toxicity Assessment+Thyroid effects RfD^,MCL
7 PFBA 2022 EPA IRIS Assessment Liver and Thyroid effects RfD
8 PFHxA 2023 EPA IRIS Assessment Developmental effects RfD
13
*PFOS & PFOA values are based on carcinogenic toxicity values. For compliance purposes, if the calculated effluent limit for PFOA or PFOS is less
than the Limit of Quantitation of 4.0 ng/L then the permit effluent limits will be set at 4.0 ng/L in Rule .0404(f) - Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations
+Used as basis for EPA's PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR)
^RfD used in NPDWR has been evaluated/modified to protect for lifetime exposures
**ATSDR= Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Toxicity Information Available for Deriving Water Supply Standards for PFAS
PFAS
Compound Reference Critical Health
Effects
Toxicity
Benchmarks and
Values Available
1 PFOS 2023 EPA Toxicity Assessment+Developmental and
Cardiovascular effects RfD, CSF, MCL
2 PFOA 2023 EPA Toxicity Assessment+Renal cell carcinomas RfD,CSF,MCL
3 HFPO-DA (GenX)2021 EPA Toxicity Assessment+Liver effects RfD,MCL
4 PFBS 2021 EPA Toxicity Assessment+Thyroid effects RfD
5 PFNA 2021 ATSDR**Toxicity Assessment+Developmental effects RfD^,MCL
6 PFHxS 2021 ATSDR**Toxicity Assessment+Thyroid effects RfD^,MCL
7 PFBA 2022 EPA IRIS Assessment Liver and Thyroid effects RfD
8 PFHxA 2023 EPA IRIS Assessment Developmental effects RfD
Toxicity Information Available for Deriving Fish Consumption Standards for PFAS
14
*PFOS & PFOA values are based on carcinogenic toxicity values. For compliance purposes, if the calculated effluent limit for PFOA or PFOS is less than the
Limit of Quantitation of 4.0 ng/L then the permit effluent limits will be set at 4.0 ng/L in Rule .0404(f) - Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations
+Used as basis for EPA's PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR)
^RfD used in NPDWR has been evaluated/modified to protect for lifetime exposures
**ATSDR= Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
General Criteria Derivation Calculation (USEPA, 2000)
Water + Fish Consumption (Water Supply Waters)
Noncancer**
𝐵𝑊𝑊𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑓𝐵 × 𝑃𝑃𝐵 × 𝑊𝐵𝑃 + (𝐹𝐵𝑃 𝑥 𝐵𝐵𝐹)
Cancer**
𝑃𝐿 𝐵𝑊𝑊𝑃𝑃 = ×𝐵𝑃𝐹 𝑊𝐵𝑃 + 𝐹𝐵𝑃 𝑥 𝐵𝐵𝐹
RL = Risk Level = 1x10-6
WQS = Water Quality Standard
Toxicity benchmarks
RfD = Oral Reference Dose
CPF = Carcinogen Potency Factor
or Cancer Slope Factor (CSF)
Exposure Factors
RSC = Relative Source Contribution
BW = Body Weight = 80 kg*
WCR = Water Consumption Rate =
2.4 L/day*
FCR = Fish Consumption Rate =
22.0 g/person-day*
BCF = Bioconcentration Factor or
Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF), if
available
*Values currently used by EPA for
National Recommended Criteria
(EPA 820-F-15-001, June 2015)
**From EPA Methodology for
Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human
Health (EPA-822-B-00-004,
October 2000). Modified to show
differences in cancer & non-cancer
calculations.
16
•Full summary of toxicological basis
is included in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
•Highlights principal studies and
health effects.
•Defines toxicological values and
their basis.
•Discusses derivation of PFAS water
quality criteria for discharges to
water supply and non-water supply
waters.
17
Title 15A NCAC Subchapter 02B – Surface
Water and Wetland Standards
Section .0200: Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina
.0201, .0202, .0203, .0204, .0205, .0206, .0208, .0211, .0212,
.0214, .0215, .0216, .0218, .0219, .0220, .0221, .0222, .0223,
.0224, .0225, .0226, .0227, .0228, .0230, .0231
Summary of Proposed PFAS Standards to be added to 02B
18
PFAS Compound
Proposed 02B Numeric Criteria
Permit Effluent Limit
Water Supply
(ng/L)
15A NCAC 02B .0212,
.0214, .0215, .0216,
.0218
Non-Water Supply
Waters (Class C & SC-
Fish Consumption)
(ng/L)
15A NCAC 02B .0211
& .0220
PFOS*0.06 0.06
Calculated based on site-
specific conditions. If PFOS
and PFOA effluent limits are
calculated at < 4.0 ng/L, the
effluent limits will be 4.0
ng/L (for those permits with
reasonable potential to
exceed the 02B numeric
criteria).
PFOA*0.001 0.01
HFPO-DA (GenX)10 500
PFBS 2,000 10,000
PFBA 6,000 200,000
PFHxA 3,000 200,000
PFNA 9 20
PFHxS 10 70
* Proposed health-based standards for PFOA and PFOS are below Limit of Quantitation. Permit effluent limit
compliance for PFOA and PFOS will be determined based on 4.0 ng/L as reported by EPA as a Limit of Quantitation
from national lab validation of the wastewater test method (1633).
NPDES Implementation Rules & Update
19
Surface Water in North Carolina
What is surface water?
•Surface Water is considered any body of water above ground, including streams, rivers, and
lakes. It is a key component of the hydrologic cycle and provides various societal and
ecosystem services, including drinking water, agricultural irrigation, and habitat for aquatic
plants and wildlife.
Total discharges to surface waters NC (maximum permitted flow)
•Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) with pretreatment programs: ~1,188 million gallons
per day
•Industrial Dischargers (Majors): ~305 million gallons per day
Example uses of surface water in NC
•22% of community drinking water systems use surface water as source water (~444 systems)
•41% of large public water supply (PWS) systems serving more than 10,000 people exceed EPA
PFAS maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
•Approximately 3.6 million residents are impacted by drinking water quality
that exceeds EPA PFAS MCLs.
20
PFAS Surface Water Quality Standards Rulemaking
Guiding Principles
•Protect drinking water sources from upstream dischargers and other
sources of contaminants into surface water.
•Reduce drinking water treatment cost burden to North Carolinians by
addressing upstream dischargers.
•Reduce wastewater treatment cost burden to North Carolinians by
addressing dischargers with background sources (e.g.,
residential)or are passive receivers after upstream reductions have
occurred.
•Provide clarity to regulated sources and reasonable time for
monitoring and taking actions to meet effluent limits.
21
Upstream Impacts on Surface Water Intakes and
Drinking Water Treatment Burden
22
Pretreatment
Controls NC Surface Water Standards
Federal
Drinking
Water
Standards
Number of Facilities Anticipated to be Associated with a PFAS
Use Industry
Permit/Facility Type # of Permits or Facilities # of PFAS Affected Facilities
Industrial Direct
Dischargers 56 39
POTWs with
Pretreatment
Programs
126 113
Significant Industrial
Users 606 464
23
NPDES Implementation of PFAS Standards
24
Why Assessment Monitoring and Tiers?
•To allow time for large municipalities with many industrial users to initiate
industrial and effluent monitoring that enables them to identify sources and
implement measures that will reduce PFAS loadings.
•To address facilities that are discharging significant amounts of PFAS
(PFOA, PFOS and GenX) in their wastewaters in Tier 1.
•To allow time for downstream facilities to see improvements in the level of
PFAS in source waters, which would reduce their treatment costs.
•To allow time for background levels (or what is often referred to as
residential levels) to be assessed.
25
NPDES Permitting
•For PFOA and PFOS, the Limit of Quantitation in EPA test method 1633 is 4.0 ng/L.
•Effluent limits for PFOA and PFOS that are calculated to be less than the Limit of
Quantitation shall be given a permitted effluent limit of the Limit of Quantitation which is
4.0 ng/L.
•Programs Not Included: Minor POTWs without pretreatment programs, 100 percent
domestic non-municipal wastewater treatment plants, and NPDES facilities with General
Permits shall not be evaluated by the Division for PFAS limits unless there is reasonable
potential for their wastewaters to contain PFAS and their discharge impacts a downstream
water use designation.
•NPDES permits for new sources or new dischargers for industrial direct dischargers,
Major POTWs, or Major or Minor POTWs with pretreatment programs shall include PFAS
effluent limits based on PFAS water quality standards that have a reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to exceedance of any PFAS water quality standards.
26
NPDES Permitting Stakeholder Feedback
Results of stakeholder discussions have been incorporated into 2B PFAS rules in
Section 15A NCAC 02B .0404 Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations.
•Report all PFAS analyzed in EPA test method 1633 (EPA is requiring this)
•Limited implementation to two tiers to identify and prioritize all dischargers
that are contributing PFAS in Tier 1. This reduces the costs of compliance for
dischargers in Tier 2. This approach reduces costs for downstream drinking
water systems.
•Tier 1 facilities can request to move to Tier 2 if the PFAS in their effluent
discharge is not greater than 10 percent of the PFAS in their source surface
water intake.
•For PFOA and PFOS values reported less than the Limit of Quantitation, the
facility shall report to the Division the actual numerical lab measurement for
all samples.
27
Fiscal Analysis Snapshot
28
Cost-Benefit Analysis Approach
29
Benefits
•Estimate the anticipated benefits of the
proposed PFAS rules and their alternatives,
including quantification and monetization.
Costs
•What are the costs associated
with the proposed PFAS
regulatory changes?
Quantitative:
Human Health &
Preservation of
Property Value
Qualitative:
Additional Human
Health Benefits, Co-
Pollutant Removal, &
Shift to Polluter Pays
Public Water
Supply and Private
Well Treatment
Cost Savings
Private Sector Local Government
State Government
Regulatory Impact Analysis
•The attached Fiscal and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was
developed per G.S. 150B-21.4.
•Includes reason for rule amendment, fiscal analysis approach, cost and
benefits summary, and rule alternatives
•Supporting Information
•Appendix A – Toxicological Summary Information and Derivation of
Surface Water Quality Criteria
•Appendix B – Proposed PFAS Surface Water Rules
•Appendix C – NCDEQ - Costs and Benefits to Industry, the Public, and
the Environment Associated with NCDEQ’s Proposed Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
30
Fiscal Analysis Summary
Impact Summary of Proposed Rules from 2024-2060:
31
Monitoring & Treatment
Costs
•Total costs to private and
public entities are projected
to be $11,193,892,532 over
36 years.
Monetized Benefits
•Total benefits projected to be
$11,675,248,686* over 36 years and
includes:
•Human health benefits
•Savings to downstream drinking water
utilities
•Private well avoided treatment
•State and federal wastewater
infrastructure funding
•Preservation of property value
Qualitative Benefits
•Extensive avoided health impacts:
•Additional Cancers not
monetized
•Cardiovascular and Endocrine
effects avoided for improved
quality of life
•Reproductive, Developmental,
and Neonatal effects avoided
for healthier children
•Removal of co-pollutants
•Shifting treatment burden from rate
payers to polluters
*Does not include natural and environmental resource benefits as reports are expected in the coming months.
This valuation is expected to be significant and will further increase the total benefits value estimated here.
Fiscal Analysis Key Takeaways
1.Impacts to regulated industries and POTWs are significant due to the presence of PFAS
contamination throughout North Carolina.
2.Monetized benefits to the state as a whole and over 10 million residents outweigh the
costs through improvements in short and long-term health, quality of life, preservation of
property value, and other societal and economic factors.
3.Non-monetized benefits provide additional value to the state’s residents, economy, and
the environment.
4.Lack of action is projected to place an extensive financial burden on North Carolinians
that exceeds the total costs and benefits of the proposed rules.
5.EMC and the public must equally weigh both costs and benefits to address PFAS
pollution.
32
Recommendation
33
Recommendation
34
Approval to proceed to the EMC with request for public notice and
hearings for the proposed rule amendments to Surface Water
Quality Standards Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0211, .0212, .0214, .0215,
.0216, .0218, and .0220 and Permitting Rule .0404 and the
associated Fiscal and Regulatory Impact Analysis.
35
Questions?
Julie A. Grzyb
Deputy Director
Division of Water Resources
NC DEQ
[e-mail]
Stephanie C. Bolyard, PhD
Senior Engineer to the Assistant
Secretary
Secretary’s Office NC DEQ
[e-mail]
Chris Ventaloro
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Division of Water Resources
NC DEQ
[e-mail]