Approved_May 2024 AQC Meeting Minutes

1
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
AIR QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY May 8, 2024 Ground Floor Hearing Room of the Archdale Building 11:45 A.M. – 12:45 P.M.

AQC MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
Mr. Charlie S. Carter, AQC Chair Mr. Michael Ellison
Dr. Kim Lyerly, AQC Vice-Chair Ms. Robin Smith
Ms. Yvonne Bailey Ms. Elizabeth (Jill) Weese
Mr. Chris Duggan
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE

During the May 8, 2024, meeting, the Air Quality Committee (AQC) of the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) heard:
1. Agenda Item II-1: Emission Guidelines for Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Oil and
Gas Sector (Katherine Quinlan, DAQ)
2. Agenda Item II-2: Revisions to Permit Review Timeline and Definitions Pursuant to Session Law
2023-134, Section 12.11(a)-(c) (Carrie Pickett, DAQ)
3. Agenda Item III-1: Request
Proceed to the EMC for Approval to Proceed to Public Comment on Amendment to 15A NCAC 02D
.0410, PM2.5 Particulate Matter to Incorporate the Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(Bradley Nelson, DAQ)
4. Agenda Item V-1: Director’s Remarks (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ)
2
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Agenda Item I-1, Call to Order and the State Government Ethics Act, N.C.G.S. §138A-15
AQC Chair Carter called the meeting to order and inquired, per General Statute §138A-15, as to whether
any member knows of any known conflict of interest or appearance of conflict with respect to matters before
the EMC’s AQC. None were stated.
Agenda Item I-2, Review and Approval of the March 13, 2024, Meeting Minutes
Chair Carter requested approval of the March 13, 2024, Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Bailey made
the motion for approval of the minutes, and Commissioner Weese seconded the motion. The minutes were
approved unanimously.
RULEMAKING CONCEPTS
Agenda Item II-1, Emission Guidelines for Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Oil and
Gas Sector (563) (Katherine Quinlan, DAQ)
Ms. Katherine Quinlan, DAQ Rule Development Branch Supervisor, presented a concept for rules to
implement the EPA’s Emissions Guidelines (EG) for Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Oil
and Gas Sector finalized under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOc (“EG OOOOc"). EPA’s final EG was
published on March 8, 2024, and provides states 2 years from this date to submit state plans for EG OOOOc.
The types of designated facilities in North Carolina covered by EG OOOOc will be based on the
applicability criteria of the Rules. For EGs promulgated under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
state plans must demonstrate that the state’s standards of performance meet the equivalency criteria
specified in the EGs when compared to EPA’s presumptive standards of performance identified in the EGs.
Designated facilities are required to meet the standards established by the state within 36 months of when
the state submits their state plan. The EPA’s final EG under Subpart OOOOc includes a model rule that
states can follow, and which contains presumptive standards of performance with associated monitoring
and reporting requirements. As required by the State Plan implementing regulations under 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Ba, the DAQ will conduct meaningful engagement with stakeholders during the rulemaking and
state plan development process. Next steps include continuing to review the scope of the EPA’s rule,
developing the list of designated facilities in North Carolina, drafting a rule(s), creating the fiscal note or
regulatory impact analysis (RIA), and developing a community outreach plan to identify stakeholders that
are most affected by the rulemaking.
Discussion
Commissioner Bailey asked if the Division could provide an update in July on the status of this rulemaking
and the progress with identifying the list of stakeholders. Ms. Quinlan agreed, confirming that the DAQ
will plan to provide an update at the July AQC meeting. Chair Carter noted that it would be appropriate
as an information item. Commissioner Ellison requested that the update include a list of affected entities.
3
Agenda Item II-2, Revisions to Permit Review Timelines and Definitions pursuant to Session Law
2023-134, Sections 12.11(a)-(c) (564) (Carrie Pickett, DAQ)
Ms. Carrie Pickett, DAQ Engineer, presented the revisions to permit review timelines and definitions
pursuant to Session Law 2023 134, Sections 12.11(a)-(c). This includes a 90-day and a 270-day application
processing period which corresponds to minor and major modifications, respectively. The Session Law also includes a new definition for “administratively complete” which is defined as “that all information required
by statute, regulation or application form has been submitted to the department for the purposes of
processing a permit application.” This definition will start either the 90-day or 270-day period, depending
on the type of modification. At the end of that period, the permit will either be issued, denied, or in the case
of a Title V permit, sent out for public notice. The DAQ is currently working with internal stakeholders on
strategies for incorporating this concept into the rules. The DAQ is tentatively looking to propose the
revisions to the AQC in September 2024 with a potential effective date of June 2025.
Discussion
Commissioner Weese asked if there were any mechanisms that would pause the review clock and what
types of events might cause such a pause. Ms. Pickett responded that there are several rules that address
permit processing and the DAQ is currently working on making sure that these requirements are included
with the proposed revisions.
ACTION ITEMS
Agenda Item III-1, Request for Approval of Proposed Rule and Regulatory Impact Analysis to
Proceed to the EMC for Approval to Proceed to Public Comment on Amendment to 15A NCAC 02D
.0410, PM2.5 Particulate Matter, to incorporate the Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) (562) (Bradley Nelson, DAQ)
Mr. Bradley Nelson, DAQ Engineer, presented the proposed revisions to 15A NCAC 02D .0410, PM2.5
Particulate Matter as a result of the change to the primary annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particle matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The primary NAAQS are set by the EPA to
protect the public from the health impacts of pollutants. On March 6, 2024, the EPA finalized changes to
the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the ambient concentration from 12.0 micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m3) to 9.0 μg/m3 while retaining the current 24-hour primary standard at a level of 35 μg/m3.
Based on certified monitoring data from 2020-2022, all areas of North Carolina would have been meeting
the revised annual PM2.5 standard (9.0 µg/m3) during this time. Preliminary ambient air quality monitoring
data for 2023 shows Mecklenburg, Wake, Forsyth, and Davidson Counties result in annual design values
above the revised standard due to influences from Canadian wildfire smoke in 2023. Mr. Nelson noted that
the 2023 monitoring data was certified by the DAQ on April 30, 2024, and an EPA correction factor was
applied to the Teledyne monitors at the Forsyth County and Wake County locations, lowering the 3-year
average design values for 2021-2023 to 8.1 and 8.3 μg/m3, respectively. The 2021-2023 design values for
both Mecklenburg and Davidson Counties were calculated to be 9.2 μg/m3.
The EPA will use a two-year process to designate areas as “attainment/unclassifiable” (for areas meeting
the revised NAAQS) and “nonattainment” (for areas exceeding the revised NAAQS). The EPA has an
Exceptional Events rule which establishes criteria and procedures for use in determining if air quality
monitoring data has been influenced by exceptional events such as wildfire smoke and fireworks. The DAQ
4
is reviewing its monitoring data from 2023 in preparation for submitting an Exceptional Events
demonstration to EPA for the Mecklenburg County and Davidson County monitoring sites that have 2021-
2023 design values above the revised standard. The Exceptional Events demonstrations are due at same
time as State designation recommendations, February 7, 2025. The EPA will use 2022-2024 monitoring
data to make final designations by February 6, 2026.
Mr. Nelson provided an overview of the RIA that was approved by the North Carolina Office of State
Budget and Management (OSBM) on April 24, 2024. He noted that the RIA provides a brief summary of
the EPA’s historical review and revisions to the PM2.5 NAAQS; the significant analyses, actions, and
milestones required of the DEQ/DAQ throughout the designation process; the EPA’s RIA findings and
results; and uncertainties associated with the NAAQS demonstration component of permit reviews. The
costs or benefits associated with the revised standard will be attributable to EPA’s action which requires
implementation by the states beginning May 6, 2024.
The EPA’s RIA evaluated four scenarios, including the final standards as well as less- and more-stringent
alternatives. The EPA analysis identified two counties in North Carolina that were projected to have control
costs if a more stringent annual standard of 8 µg/m3 was selected, but zero control costs for the final
standards or the other two alternatives. In their RIA, the EPA estimated health benefits of $5.3 billion for
the southeast region, which included North Carolina and eleven other states. However, most of the health
benefits were primarily due to seven counties (in TX, LA, GA, and FL) that would need emission reductions
to reach attainment with the revised standard. Mr. Nelson concluded the presentation with a tentative
rulemaking timeline for the revisions to 15A NCAC 02D .0410.
Discussion
Commissioner Smith asked for clarification on the design values of Wake and Forsyth Counties. She noted
that the presentation shows that four counties exceed the standard using 2021-2023 monitoring data;
however, based on certified and Teledyne monitor corrected data, Wake and Forsyth Counties are now
below the revised annual standard of 9.0 μg/m3. Mr. Nelson confirmed that was correct. Commissioner
Smith asked if there are now any remaining counties with design values exceeding the standard. Mr. Nelson
stated that there are two remaining counties, Mecklenburg County and Davidson County, with 2021-2023
design values that exceed the annual PM2.5 standard, but the DAQ is working on an Exceptional Events
demonstration (subject to EPA approval) to reduce these annual PM2.5 design values below the standard.
DAQ Director Abraczinskas added that the bias correction for the Teledyne monitors located in Wake
County and Forsyth County was an EPA national action and was not specific to North Carolina. The same
algorithm was applied to every T640 Teledyne monitor nationwide, which was known to have a high bias
in comparison to the federal reference method data that is more precise. DAQ Director Abraczinskas stated
that DAQ’s highest priority is working on Exceptional Events demonstrations in 2024 to submit those in
early 2025 with our designation recommendation for the State to show that, after excluding exceptional
events days at the Mecklenburg and Davidson County monitors, North Carolina is in attainment statewide.
Chair Carter asked about the types of monitors used by the State. DAQ Director Abraczinskas stated that
the State uses a variety of continuous- and filter-based monitors, including some with the known high bias.
The State also operates a few filter-based monitors and is working towards transitioning to continuous-
based monitors that provide real time results, rather than using filter-based monitors that are labor-intensive.
Chair Carter asked if there was a reason that Mecklenburg County and Davidson County are above the
standard, even though they are somewhat separated. DAQ Director Abraczinskas responded that these two
sites have always been amongst the highest PM2.5 monitoring sites in the State due to the unique mix of
5
emission sources. However, if not for exceptional events like the Canadian wildfires, these monitoring sites
would be in attainment with the more stringent revised standard.
Commissioner Deerhake noted that Davidson County PM2.5 levels have always lingered in the upper levels
and asked if the Mecklenburg County PM2.5 levels consisted of both stationary sources and mobile sources.
DAQ Director Abraczinskas responded that Mecklenburg County has a unique mix of different types of sources of direct fine particulates and precursors that form particulate matter in the atmosphere. He added
that most of the fine particulate that is captured by the monitor is secondarily formed from gaseous
emissions and not directly emitted particulate. Commissioner Deerhake commented that much of the
secondary aerosol particulates are the result of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) reacting with
ammonia to form ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, respectively, and added that she would like to
see more ammonia monitoring in the State. Commissioner Deerhake observed that the EPA developed a
thorough RIA for this national standard, noting that there are parallels in water quality, and asked why there
were no cost impacts for North Carolina in the EPA’s RIA. Mr. Nelson stated that the EPA modeled
emissions for future years and found that two counties in North Carolina were projected to exceed the
standard only under one of the alternative scenarios (annual standard of 8.0 μg/m3 PM2.5) and therefore
would incur control costs to lower emissions to meet that alternative standard. He noted that the EPA did
not project any control costs for North Carolina to meet the final standards that were chosen (annual of 9
μg/m3 and 24-hour of 35 μg/m3). Commissioner Deerhake asked if the RIA for the proposed rule was
approved by the OSBM. Mr. Nelson responded that the RIA was approved by OSBM, however the DAQ
plans to update the RIA to include the newly certified monitoring data for 2023. Commissioner Deerhake
added that RIAs developed at the federal level include much more resources and more detailed analyses.
Vice-Chair Lyerly asked if there was an analysis of the population or diversity being monitored or just the
geography. DAQ Director Abraczinskas responded that in the standard-setting process, the EPA considers
many of the factors identified by Commissioner Lyerly, but the State's requirement to do ambient air
quality monitoring is based on a population threshold that triggers a certain number of monitors in an area.
Monitor sites have only been evaluated for Environmental Justice (EJ) more recently, however, more than
half of the monitoring sites in North Carolina are in or near EJ communities. Director Abraczinskas added
that siting for even one monitor can be very complex, when the State is not purchasing land on which to
locate the monitor but rather establishing cooperative agreements with other entities (usually public entities
such as schools) that must meet EPA’s rigorous siting criteria. There are not many siting options available
that meet these rigorous criteria. Commissioner Lyerly added that not only diversity, but urban/rural mix
has changed in many areas and if the monitoring sites are fixed, they may not accurately represent PM2.5
concentrations or other health risks in the State. DAQ Director Abraczinskas acknowledged that this is a
challenge and the DAQ struggles with resources to even maintain the minimum monitoring network for
pollutants like PM2.5 to meet the federal requirements. He added that while NOx and SOx emissions have
gone down, the importance of secondarily formed organic aerosols from volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions has gone up, although the amounts of such VOCs have remained constant.
Chair Carter asked if there was a motion on the request. Commissioner Duggan motioned to approve the
proposed rule amendment and accompanying RIA to proceed to the EMC for approval to proceed to public
comment. Commissioner Lyerly seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Carter noted that there are two Air Quality action items on the following day’s EMC agenda.
Agenda Item V-1, Director’s Remarks (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ)
6
DAQ Director Abraczinskas noted that it was State Employees Appreciation Week and thanked the staff
for their work. He also noted that it was Air Quality Awareness Week.
CLOSING REMARKS AND MEETING ADJOURNMENT
Chair Carter noted the next meeting of the AQC is scheduled for July 10, 2024, and adjourned the meeting.