Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft July 2024 WQC Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE July 10, 2024 Meeting Minutes MEETING BRIEF During the July 10, 2024 meeting of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee, the Committee: • Approved the draft May 8, 2024 meeting minutes, • Approved a request from the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) that the nine rules that govern DMS according to the administrative code be taken to the full EMC at their next meeting for approval to go to public comment, • Approved DWR’s request regarding wastewater flow rate modification to proceed to the full EMC and public notice and hearing for the proposed amended rules 15A NCAC 02T .0114 and 15A NCAC 02T .0118 pursuant to SL 2023-55, • Heard a presentation from DEQ and DWR regarding the PFAS Surface Water Quality Rules Development Process, • Heard a Semi-Annual Progress Report on 1,4 dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin presented by DWR, and • Heard an update from DWR 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 Q EMC Commissioner Robin Smith Ellie Young, EMC Counsel Bill Lane, DEQ General Counsel Sushma Masemore, DEQ Assistant Secretary for Environment Sharon Martin, DEQ Deputy Secretary for Public Affairs Richard Rogers, DWR Director Kelly Williams, DMS Nathanial Thornburg, DWR Stephanie Bolyard, DEQ Frances Nilsen, DEQ Chris Ventaloro, DWR Jenny Graznak, DWR Michael Montebello, DWR Page 2 of 10 Jule Grzyb, DWR Deputy Director Karen Higgins, DWR Elijah Williams, Water Reclamation Manager for the City of Greensboro TABLE OF ACRONYMS CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHPP Coastal Habitat Protection Plan CWA Clean Water Act DMS NC Division of Mitigation Services 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 POTW Publicly owned treatment works, a sewage treatment plant owned and usually operated by a government agency. 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 Page 3 of 10 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 1:00pm and inquired about any known conflicts of interest. Vice-Chair Ellison announced that due to his job, he’d abstain from the first action item pertaining to the Division of Mitigation Services. No other conflicts were announced. 2. Approval of May 8, 2024 meeting minutes: The Committee approved the draft May 8, 2024 meeting minutes without discussion. II. Action Item 1. Action - Request Approval to Proceed to the Environmental Management Commission with a Request to Send the Periodic Review of Rules Report for 15A NCAC Subchapter 02R – Division of Mitigation Services to Public Notice in Accordance with S.L. 2013-413 (HB 74) (Kelly Williams, Division of Mitigation Services) Kelly Williams, Division of Mitigation Services, stated that DMS is recommending that the nine rules in 15A NCAC 02R be given an initial determination of necessary. She presented a brief overview of those rules and an anticipated schedule, noting that she hoped to be on the April 2025 RRC agenda. Commissioner Tweedy moved that the nine rules that govern DMS according to the administrative code be taken to the full EMC at their next meeting for approval to go to public comment. Commissioner Deerhake seconded the motion. The motion carried. 2. Action - Request Approval to Proceed to the EMC with Wastewater Flow Rate Modifications in G.S. 143-215.1(f3) as Directed in S.L. 2023-137 Section 18 (Nathaniel Thornburg, Division of Water Resources) Nathanial Thornburg, Division of Water Resources, began his presentation with some background information, noting that his proposal was to re- include language that was erroneously removed in May 2024 in the new rule. This language would be modified to state that the rule applies to wastewater systems serving single dwelling units. He also stated some additional clarifying language. Page 4 of 10 Vice Chair Ellison moved that the WQC approve this request and move it to the full EMC to proceed to public notice and hearing for the proposed amended rules 15A NCAC 02T .0114 and 15A NCAC 02T .0118 pursuant to SL 2023-55. Commissioner Baumgartner seconded the motion, and it passed. 2. Information - Continue with PFAS Surface Water Quality Rules Development Process (Chris Ventaloro, Division of Water Resources, Julie Gryzb, Division of Water Resources, and Stephanie Bolyard, ADM, DEQ) Chair Keen noted that this item was previously discussed at the May 2024 WQC meeting but that it was coming back today for additional in-depth discussion and because the RIA and supporting documents had not been approved at that time. DWR Director Rogers noted that OSBM approved the RIA this morning at 10:56. Chair Keen asked if OSBM made any adjustments relating to additions or deletions from the draft revealed to the public on June 27. Director Rogers said there are some technical amendments and changes that will be discussed during the presentation. Chris Ventaloro, DWR, noted that this rulemaking had two primary requests. The first is for the adoption of surface water standards for PFAS compounds in the 02B .0200 rules. The second request is for the adoption of an implementation plan for these PFAs standards in the 02B .0404 NPDES permitting rules. Mr. Ventaloro gave a recap of previous related presentations. Mr. Ventaloro’s slides indicated that there was a presentation on this topic to the WQC at the May 2024 meeting, but that presentation did not happen due to lack of time. Mr. Ventaloro noted that he’d correct the slide. Mr. Ventaloro provided some background information about federal and state water quality standards. He noted that the intent of this rulemaking is to protect sensitive uses such as drinking water. He noted that about 36% of North Carolinians who get their drinking water from public water systems are exposed to PFAS concentrations higher than the EPA’s recent MCLs. He also said that about 25% of North Carolinians who get their drinking water from private wells are exposed to higher levels of PFAS than the MCLs. He noted that DEQ has developed surface water standards for 8 PFAS compounds - PFOS, PFOA, HFPO- DA (aka GenX), PFBS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBA, and PFHxA - to protect drinking water and fish consumption. He noted that the health effects of these compounds are published in peer-reviewed scientific studies and have been evaluated by a Page 5 of 10 federal agency and other experts. He said that the health effects data support development of a reference does and/or cancer slope factor and that these 8 compounds have been found in North Carolina’s air, water, soil, and fish. He also noted that these compounds can be accurately measured by EPA test methods. He explained how these standards are derived and noted that a full summary of the toxicological basis is included in the RIA that was approved today by OSBM. Julie Grzyb, DWR Deputy Director, said that the NPDES implementation rules are included in Appendix B of the RIA on page 90. She noted that it was uncommon to adopt rules like these with standards, but that DWR is doing so to provide clarity to stakeholders and citizens. She explained surface water and its uses, noting that it is a common source of drinking water. She presented a chart showing the number of facilities that DWR anticipates would be impacted by these new protections. She noted that DWR is putting PFAS monitoring into NDPES permits. She explained why DWR was using assessment monitoring and tiers, noting that compliance schedules will be set for facilities. She also noted that for PFOA and PFOS, the Limit of Quantitation in EPA test method 1633 is 4.0 ng/L. Ms. Grzyb presented feedback from stakeholder meetings and noted adjustments made to the rules based on those comments. Stephanie Bolyard, DEQ, presented an overview of the fiscal analysis. She noted that DEQ worked with two consulting firms to create cost models and vet scientific and engineering principles. She provided an impact summary of the proposed rules from 2024-2060, noting that over 36 years, total costs are projected to be $11,193,892,532 and total benefits are projected to be $11,675,248,686 (excluding significant natural and environmental resource benefits). She also noted qualitative benefits such as extensive avoided health impacts, removal of co-pollutants, and shifting the treatment burden to polluter pays. She noted that OSBM provided feedback that warranted changes to the fiscal note. The main technical change that OSBM recommended was that the monetized benefits for infrastructure funding should be best represented not as a benefit but as a cost offset. OSBM recommended that DEQ move that line item into monitoring and treatment costs as a reduction in the total cost to affected entities. Page 6 of 10 Chair Keen stated that the RIA belonged to the EMC, not DEQ, and said that EMC members have not seen that change or any stakeholder involvement in that change. Julie Grzyb then said DEQ was recommending that the WQC approve these proposed standards and rules and for the matter to proceed to the EMC. DEQ Assistant Secretary Masemore stated that DEQ has prioritized PFAS for over two years and it understands the extent of PFAS pollution in North Carolina. She emphasized that the science behind the health harms from these 8 specific PFAS compounds was solid and peer-reviewed, and she noted that DEQ hasn’t received objections to those health impacts. She said that DEQ and third parties have data that shows the presence of these PFAS at different levels. She also said that per Chair Keen’s request, DEQ did not formally submit the RIA to OSBM until copies of it were provided to the WQC. Commissioner Baumgartner said that the WQC could have been working with DEQ on this RIA for the last six months but instead DEQ has been giving presentations and now provided this RIA two weeks ago. Vice Chair Ellison asked for copies of the comments received from OSBM. He asked Ms. Grzyb if the EPA MCLs are proposed or effective, and she said they are finalized. He also asked how the process of developing the RIA improved the design of the proposed rule. Ms. Bolyard and Ms. Grzyb stated that RIA data was helpful with creating implementation guidelines and rules. Vice Chair Ellison asked if any SIUs made medical devices that required PFAS for the device to be functional, and Ms. Bolyard clarified that these rules do not ban the use of PFAS if needed to make critical medical devices. Ms. Grzyb noted that POTWs could apply for a variance if they had a critical manufacturer imposing large treatment costs. She also noted that DEQ works with POTWs to create compliance schedules. Vice Chair Ellison, Ms. Bolyard, and Ms. Grzyb discussed when PFAS were first used and if any human deaths have been directly attributed to PFAS. Frances Nilsen, DEQ toxicologist, explained to Vice Chair Ellison how DEQ developed its fish tissue and bioaccumulation data. Vice Chair Ellison asked if there are any existing or anticipated legal challenges to EPA’s MCLs, and Ms. Grzyb said she wasn’t aware of any. He asked if drinking water MCLs compel a prompt response with surface water standards, and Mr. Ventaloro said that EPA is in the process of developing national recommended criteria for surface waters. Vice Chair Ellison and Ms. Bolyard and Ms. Grzyb discussed how surface water pollution can enter into groundwater/wells. Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Deerhake asked about the WQC’s obligation under the Clean Water Act to protect North Carolinians who are exposed to unsafe PFAS levels. Ms. Masemore said that states have the authority to implement the CWA (through the EMC in North Carolina’s case). She said that the CWA compels North Carolina to not allow toxic pollutants in toxic amounts and that the CWA delegates authority to North Carolina to do that. Commissioner Deerhake asked what would happen if North Carolina did not act, and DEQ General Counsel Bill Lane said that EPA can pursue withdrawal of North Carolina’s program over time if it determines that North Carolina isn’t addressing what EPA considers to be a priority. He said that PFAS issues are a high priority issue for EPA. Commissioner Deerhake noted that this RIA was high quality and contained helpful studies. Commissioner Reardon asked about how states around North Carolina are handling PFAS. Ms. Bolyard noted that none of the states directly next to North Carolina have promulgated or proposed standards but that several other states have. Ms. Grzyb noted that South Carolina is doing assessment monitoring. Commissioner Reardon asked if PFOA and PFOS are the only two of the eight PFAS chemicals that are classified as likely human carcinogens, and Ms. Grzyb answered in the affirmative, noting that the EPA considers those to be of the highest toxicity along with GenX. Commissioner Yarborough stated that most biosolids end up on agricultural lands and asked for more information about food exposure and the extent to which PFAS can enter into plants from contaminated soil. He requested more information in the RIA pertaining to agriculture. Commissioner Baumgartner asked for more information about how data regarding ingestion and exposure is being derived in the RIA. Ms. Bolyard indicated that she’d pass along some information about that, and Commissioner Baumgartner suggested that information be added to the RIA. He also asked for clarification about POTW monitoring and treatment costs. Commissioner Deerhake moved to proceed to the EMC with requests for public notice and hearings for proposed rule amendments to surface water standards 02B .0211, .0212, .0214, .0215, .0216, .0218, .0220, and the permitting rule 404 and the fiscal and regulatory impact analysis. Commissioner Tweedy seconded the motion. Chair Keen asked EMC Counsel Ellie Young if the RIA is in compliance with the open meeting law given the minor revisions made in the prior two weeks. Ms. Young indicated she wasn’t certain of the answer. Chair Keen also asked if DEQ Page 8 of 10 had publicly released the RIA certified this morning by OSBM. Assistant Secretary Masemore indicated that OSBM posted the RIA on their website this morning, but that she doesn’t have further information since she’s been in EMC Committee meetings all day. Ms. Young indicated that there needs to be a determination if the change to the RIA was substantive or a simple technical change. EMC Chair Solomon noted that the number of pages has changed and that the EMC has not been able to review the new document. Vice Chair Ellison asked Counsel if this item could be converted into an action item given that 48 hours of public notice has not been given for that change, and Ms. Young said that strict compliance with open meetings law would mean that the item should not converted into an action item today. Vice Chair Ellison moved to table the motion until the next WQC meeting so the WQC can see and review the revised documents. Commissioner Baumgartner seconded that motion. Commissioner Deerhake noted that this topic has been discussed multiple times at multiple WQC meetings and that there has been enough discussion for the WQC to decide. The WQC voted to allow the substitute motion to defer action on DEQ’s recommendation until the next WQC meeting. Then the WQC voted on that substitute motion as put forth by Vice Chair Ellison, and that motion carried. 4. Information - Semi-Annual Progress Report on 1,4 dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin (Jenny Graznak and Michael Montebello, Division of Water Resources) Chair Keen noted that the WQC is going to consider this item before item 4 on the agenda. Jenny Graznak, DWR, began with some background information explaining why this information is being presented to the WQC. She noted that the SOC was effective and helped Greensboro identify SIU sources and take pretreatment actions to reduce 1,4-dioxane concentrations. She presented a graph of Greensboro’s discharge data showing a significant decrease in 1,4- dioxane concentrations. She noted that Greensboro investigated several instances of slightly elevated 1,4-dioxane effluent values and continues to track SIUs and review effluent data. She said that Greensboro is now voluntarily conducting post-SOC voluntary actions that are similar to SOC Year Three requirements. Page 9 of 10 Michael Montebello, DWR, presented a chart summary of NPDES permits with 1,4-dioxane requirements. He also highlighted anticipated permitting actions in 2024 and reviewed additional NPDES point sources. He said that the Greensboro SOC was a success story by significantly reducing 1,4-dioxane levels. He noted that the final SOC report is due to the WQC in November. Elijah Williams, Water Reclamation Manager for the City of Greensboro, said that Greensboro sampled using composite samples and went to different sewer sheds. These methods allowed Greensboro to determine a baseline. He also said there is surveillance sampling in major industrial areas. In response to a question from Vice Chair Ellison, Mr. Williams said Greensboro spends a little over $100,000 per year to conduct sampling. 5. Information -Update on the Study of Narrative Standards per SL 2023-137(8) (Karen Higgins, Division of Water Resources) Karen Higgins, DWR, noted that in response to questions, DWR clarified when the narrative criteria is used. She also said there were questions about how this is used in NPDES permitting so a footnote was added to clarify that effluent limits are required under a different part of the federal regulations. She said that DEQ asked EPA region 4 to respond to six questions and that attachment B contained those questions and answers. IV. Conclusion DWR Director Rogers says DWR looks forward to receiving the WQC’s RIA questions in writing and responding to them for the next meeting. Chair Keen provided the following closing remarks: Once you set any surface water standard, it’s extremely difficult to get the EPA to allow you to adopt something less strict. As such, if you rush to judgment on a surface water quality standard, you run a risk that you’re stuck with it forever and that you force dischargers to install treatment technology to meet a standard that was ultimately more stringent than necessary. Page 10 of 10 So, instead of setting some standard in stone (that we’re stuck with forever and may or may not work), the Water Quality Committee, with the help of the department, are doing our best to reduce discharges with other tools at its disposal while we go through the process of understanding where the contaminant is coming from and using the ability of all sources to reduce their contribution of that contaminant. Fortunately, with supporting documents and stakeholder involvement, we’re in a position to define and allocate mass of the contaminant among the different sources. While this effort is ongoing, and on a parallel path, we can be deciding what the drinking water standard for that contaminant should be as well as how much of the burden for complying and enforcing that standard will be on the dischargers’ side versus the drinking water utilities’ side. The WQC is staying the course, focusing solely on getting this right for all North Carolina citizens. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4pm.