AttachmentC_Q&AFollowingJuly2024GWWMC

C-1
GWWMC Comments and Questions on the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the
Amendment to 15A NCAC 02L .0202 for PFAS Groundwater Standards, as provided by
Vice Chair Tim Baumgartner in a follow-up phone call with Jessica Montie on July 16,
2024, with DEQ Responses. [Note: items discussed during the July GWWMC meeting have
been summarized in the meeting minutes.]

1. The Committee voted to change the RIA to reflect proposed groundwater standards
for PFOA, PFOS, and HFPO-DA (GenX) only, and remove the proposed standards for
the other 5 PFAS in the original RIA. Please update the impacts in the RIA to reflect
that change.

DEQ Response: The RIA has been revised throughout the document to make this
change from 8 PFAS to 3 PFAS and the revised RIA has been approved by OSBM,
including the following key points:

• 5 of the 6 PFAS previously proposed standards that were higher than the
existing regulatory limit at the PQL were removed from the analysis.
• Since PFAS data is still being collected, the potential for future cost savings
resulting from the proposed higher standard for GenX has not been ruled out.
• If one site met the criteria listed in the RIA for potential future cost savings from
the GenX standard, that potential savings could still be a substantial
economic impact.
• Table VII-7 of the RIA was also updated to reflect additional results received
for analysis of PFOA, PFOS, and GenX at landfills since the original RIA was
approved by OSBM.
• The amounts for cost savings in Tables VII-8 and VIII-2 were revised to remove
the treatment option that combined GAC and IX, as this option would not need
to be used at a site that met the conditions for cost savings (the combination
is recommended for sites with high concentrations of PFOA and PFOS,
meaning the site would not meet the criteria for savings).

Therefore, there is no substantial change to the overall impacts of the rule
amendment from earlier version of RIA that addressed 8 PFAS. The impacts are as
follows:
• Potential for future savings to state government staff time that can be used at
other sites.
• No additional costs to the regulated community.
C-2
• Potential for future cost savings at sites as a result of the proposed
amendment.
• Potential savings at just one site could be a substantial economic impact.
• Benefit of regulatory certainty and clarification.

The revised RIA was approved by the Office of State Budget and Management as
required by G.S. 150B-21.4.

2. Please make the units clear and consistent for PFAS standards throughout all
documentation (the rule text, RIA, and the presentations) to avoid confusion for
those reviewing the documents during public comment.

DEQ Response: The rule text was revised to show the standards in ng/L to be
consistent with the RIA and the presentation.

3. Since the RIA states the proposed standards for the 6 are for regulatory relief, who
and in what context is that being requested. What stakeholders are requesting
regulatory relief, and what discussions or conversations have occurred related to
that request?

DEQ Response: DEQ provided a list of the stakeholders that met with DEQ staff and
the stakeholder meeting dates in the presentation given at the March 2024 GWWMC
meeting. The groundwater standards were developed based on the available science
and data, and not based on regulatory burden or relief. Also, since the RIA was
subsequently revised to include only 3 PFAS as directed at the July 2024 GWWMC
meeting, 5 of the 6 PFAS that had the potential to provide regulatory relief have since
been removed from the analysis.

4. Why does the document discuss negative health impacts of PFAS, and enforcement
of PFAS at proposed standards will have no change to health impacts as stated in
the RIA? This is confusing/unclear.

DEQ Response: Health impacts are still relevant to the RIA and the rule amendment.
The standards were developed based on health impacts, which is an important
distinction to make from the existing regulatory limit at the PQL which is based on
laboratory technology and capability. The proposed standards provide clarification to
the regulated community and NC residents on what levels of PFAS might cause
negative health impacts in groundwater.
C-3
5. Why was the IMAC for PFOA originally established, and then later removed? Why are
IMACs not being pursued for PFAS at this time?

DEQ Response: Additional background information regarding the PFOA IMAC
established in 2006 and removed in 2022 has been added to the RIA (see Page 9).

The process for the establishment of an IMAC begins by DWR receiving a request. At
the time of the July GWWMC meeting, no request for an IMAC for any PFAS had been
received. IMACs are established by the Director of DWR for substances that do not
have an 02L groundwater standard. IMACs are considered temporary as they are
brought before the EMC to be considered for rulemaking within one year of being
established. Public notice and an opportunity for comment is provided before the
establishment of an IMAC, however, there is no public hearing and the establishment
of an IMAC does not require an RIA. DEQ decided to go through the full rulemaking
process with the EMC in order to pursue 02L groundwater standards rather than
temporary IMACs for these PFAS as this would provide stakeholders, the regulated
community, and the public with the most information and the most opportunity for
input on a topic with considerable expected interest.

6. Page 12 mentions that licensed professionals would need to estimate remediation
costs at sites. Didn’t licensed professionals already estimate the treatment costs
that are shown in the RIA? What is meant by this?

DEQ Response: Additional clarification has been added to the RIA to address this
question (see Page 13). While licensed professionals from the third-party consultant
did provide general cost estimates for PFAS treatment for the RIA, these estimates
were not site-specific, and were based only on recent experience at other sites,
research, and a long list of assumptions that may not apply at each individual site. A
site-specific review by licensed professionals (engineers, geologists, etc.) that
factors in all of the variables and circumstances at a specific site would be required
to determine the costs at any given site (this is the norm for conducting any kind of
environmental site review to assess and remediate contamination / environmental
impacts).

7. What are the by-products or waste products resulting from PFAS filtration/treatment
systems (ex. arsenic or other metals), and how/where will the by-products/waste be
handled (treatment, disposal, etc.)? Were disposal costs (or other waste handling
costs) included in cost estimates? What is the trade-off (are we just trading one
problem for another)?

C-4
DEQ Response: Residuals management (spent media) via high temperature
incineration or reactivation was considered in the treatment options and cost
estimates by Brown & Caldwell, as described in the technical memo in Appendix C of
the RIA. Landfilling is also an option but would require additional considerations, and
the cost would vary based on disposal options near the site and tipping fees (so this
option was discussed in the technical memo, but disposal costs were not included in
the treatment cost estimates of the RIA). The location of residuals management
would be site specific and determined by the site operator(s) and or their
contractors/consultants.

The rule amendment is not expected to add any additional complications of residuals
management than normally would be required for treatment and clean-up. As
mentioned in the RIA, that sites may already be conducting assessment and
remediation for compounds other than PFAS, such as metals or VOCs, and could just
be adding PFAS treatment as a part of existing remediation.

8. Is this rulemaking action for PFAS standards being done as a part of the triennial
review process? Is this the next consecutive triennial review? Or is it a stand-alone
rulemaking?

DEQ Response: The RIA has been revised to clarify that this proposed amendment is
not a part of the triennial review (see Page 10). This proposed amendment to adopt
PFAS groundwater standards is a follow up to the previous triennial review, where
DEQ committed to continue to evaluate the developing science and newly published
data on PFAS in order to develop and recommend PFAS groundwater standards. The
next triennial review focuses on the groundwater standards currently in the 02L rule.
The result of that review, which includes recommended changes to a number of
existing groundwater standards, is expected to begin rulemaking in 2025.

9. How is DEQ currently exercising its existing authority to require corrective
action/remediation for PFAS under the existing rules (with the PQL as the regulatory
limit) as the RIA currently states that DEQ has regulatory authority now without
further action?

DEQ Response: The plan that is currently being executed to address DWM sites under
the existing rules was included in the RIA as Appendix B and was mentioned in prior
presentations to the GWWMC. The plan and schedule would not change because of
the rule amendment, except that the regulatory limit would be higher for GenX.

C-5
DWM has already required analysis for PFAS at landfills, hazardous waste sites, some
inactive hazardous sites, and some brownfields sites as described in the RIA.
Assessing individual sites to determine the level, extent, and source of contamination
is not a short or simple process, and the current regulations (including 02L Section
.0100) include processes with multiple steps and timelines for conducting this
required work. In addition to notices of violation being issued at sites in the past,
notices of violation and other forms of tiered enforcement have and will be issued for
sites moving through the assessment phase for PFAS to facilitate corrective action.