Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft November 2024 AQC Meeting Minutes 1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AIR QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY November 13, 2024 Ground Floor Hearing Room of the Archdale Building 8:45 A.M. – 10:00 A.M. AQC MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE Chair Charles (Charlie) Carter Ms. Robin Smith Ms. Elizabeth (Jill) Weese Ms. Yvonne Bailey Mr. Michael Ellison OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE During the November 13, 2024, meeting, the Air Quality Committee (AQC) of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) heard: 1. Agenda Item II-1, Revisions to Rule for Air Curtain Incinerators (ACIs) (567) (Anna Delahunt, DAQ) 2. Agenda Item V-1: Update on Pre-Permitting Activities Provisions of Session Law 2023-134, Section 12.11(e) (566) (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) 3. Agenda Item V-2: Director’s Remarks (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) 2 PRELIMINARY MATTERS Chair Carter recognized the DEQ’s new Secretary, Ms. Mary Penny Kelley, for a few remarks. Secretary Kelley introduced herself, noting that she would be attending each of the Committee meetings and would speak on Hurricane Helene at the following day’s EMC meeting. Secretary Kelley noted the extensive time that staff spend pulling together relevant information to bring before the Commission so that members can balance the competing interests between business interests, environmental interests, and residential interests. 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 September 11, 2024, Meeting Minutes AQC Chair Carter requested approval of the September 11, 2024, meeting minutes. Commissioner Bailey motioned to approve the minutes and Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. RULEMAKING CONCEPTS Agenda Item II-1, Revisions to Rule for Air Curtain Incinerators (ACIs) (567) (Anna Delahunt, DAQ) Anna Delahunt (DAQ): Good morning. I'm Anna Delahunt with the Planning Section of the Division of Air Quality, and today my presentation is on revisions to 15A NCAC 02D .1904, the rule on air curtain incinerators. Here's some acronyms that we'll be using throughout the presentation, just for you to reference. For some background on the rule, 15A NCAC 02D .1900 contains the open burning rules, and prohibits open burning except for as described in Rules 02D .1903 and .1904. Rule 02D .1904 sets the conditions for the operation of air curtain incinerators or ACIs, including applicability, permitting, opacity limitations, visible emissions standards, performance tests, and recordkeeping requirements. The existing Rule currently in place requires Title V permits for all ACIs. The Rule was originally adopted and became effective on July 1, 1996, and has set the requirements for air current burners, requiring permits for air current burners that are at permanent sites and those that have materials transported in from other sites. Burners that had the potential to burn 15,000 tons of material or more per year were subject to 15A NCAC 02Q .0500, Title V Procedures. The Rule also had requirements for opacity, visible emission certification, ash accumulation, and maintaining daily logs of different burned materials. In December of 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EGs) for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units, under 40 CFR Part 60 Subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. In December of 2005, the EPA finalized NSPS and EGs for Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) units, under 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts EEEE and FFFF, respectively. There are regulations for both CISWI and OSWI units. The difference is that CISWI units have a daily throughput of greater than or equal to 35 tons per day, while OSWI ACIs have a daily throughput of less than 35 tons per day. Amendments to 02D .1904 were effective on August 4, 2004, and required a certified visible emissions reader on-site at all times while ACIs were operating. The amendment also changed opacity standards, incorporated federal rules for CISWI ACIs, and lowered the 15,000 tons per year trigger for a Title V permit to 8,100 tons per year. Amendments effective on July 1, 2007, 3 incorporated the OSWI standards and recordkeeping requirements of the EPA's final rules for OSWI ACIs. Rule 02D .1904 was readopted on September 1, 2019, to include changes by the EPA for CISWI and OSWI ACIs. Some of these changes were to add or refine definitions of wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste, to revise requirements so all new or existing ACIs must have a General Title V Operating Permit and add some timeline to this permitting process, and to amend opacity limits. On April 17, 2024, EPA finalized the elimination of a Title V permit requirement for OSWI ACIs that burn less than 35 tons per day of only wood waste, clean lumber, yard waste, or a mixture of these materials. These changes were made to 40 CFR, Part 60, Subparts EEEE and FFFF. Also, last week the EPA proposed some technical corrections to these rules, and we are still evaluating the impacts of that. The ACIs must not be located at Title V major sources or otherwise subject to Title V permit requirements, and they must continue to comply with opacity limitations. On October 24, 2024, the DAQ requested regulatory relief from the EPA regarding the use of ACIs in North Carolina to handle disaster debris, including waiver of the Title V permit requirement for CISWI ACIs. This rule is about OSWI ACIs, but the DAQ requested regulatory relief for CISWI ACIs. We received a partial response on November 6, 2024 but have received no waiver at this time. Chair Carter: What was the nature of that partial response then? Anna Delahunt: I'm not sure of the exact details of the response, but it did not grant the waiver. Mike Abraczinskas (DAQ Director): And Mr. Chairman, I'm going to address that and broader Hurricane Helene response efforts during my remarks at the end of the meeting, if that's ok. Chair Carter: That's fine. Director Abraczinskas: Thank you. Anna Delahunt: On October 10, 2024, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed House Bill 149, otherwise known as the Disaster Recovery Act of 2024, in response to Hurricane Helene. Section 10.5.(c) of the Act stated that owners and operators of permanent and temporary ACIs subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts EEEE and FFFF, shall not be required to obtain a General Title V Operating Permit, and this would apply to ACIs that burn less than 35 tons per day of only wood waste, clean lumber, yard waste, or a mixture of these materials. This went ahead and enacted the end goal of the rulemaking we're working on right now. Section 10.5.(d) required the EMC to amend ACI Rule 02D .1904 to be consistent with Section 10.5.(c), and this change will be in effect until the revised permanent rule is effective. Therefore, in this rulemaking, the DAQ intends to propose removing the Title V permit requirement for OSWI ACIs that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, yard waste, or a mixture of these materials in 15A NCAC 02D .1904 to align with EPA's recent revisions to 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts EEEE and FFFF. The DAQ is also proposing some changes based on comments from the regional offices and DAQ staff. Until EPA action is taken to remove or waive the Title V permit requirement for CISWI ACIs, such provisions will remain in Rule 02D .1904. Currently the DAQ is evaluating the current DAQ practices and state and federal rules, and our next steps will be to finalize the scope of the rulemaking and to draft the rules and the fiscal note/regulatory impact analysis. We hope to present draft rules to the AQC in January and to the EMC in March 2025, go to public comment in the spring or summer of 2025, and request adoption by the EMC in July or September of 2025. 4 One more thing to note that is a little outside the ordinary is the effective date. Pursuant to Section 10.5.(d) of the Disaster Recovery Act, rules adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to Part 3 of Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes (G.S.), meaning Rules Review Commission review, and shall become effective as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b1), as though ten or more written objections had been received as provided in G.S. 150B-21.3(b2). This means the rule will go to the next legislative session for review by the General Assembly. Pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3(b1), rules that go before the General Assembly will become effective on the earlier of the thirty-first legislative day or the day of adjournment of the next regular session of the General Assembly that begins at least 25 days after the date of the Rules Review Commission reviewed that rule, unless a different effective date applies. Since it's not going to the Rules Review Commission, it'll either be the thirty-first legislative day or a different effective date is set in place. Thank you. Chair Carter: Thank you. Any questions? None. All right. Well, thank you very much. ACTION ITEMS None EMC AGENDA ITEMS Chair Carter noted there are two Air Quality rulemaking items on the following day’s EMC agenda. INFORMATION ITEMS Agenda Item V-1, Update on Pre-Permitting Activities Provisions of Session Law 2023-134, Section 12.11(e) (566) (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) DAQ Director Abraczinskas provided an update to the rulemaking presented as a concept at the July AQC meeting, related to the Pre-Permitting Activity provisions of S.L. 2023-134, Section 12.11(e), and the status of requesting feedback from the EPA. As a reminder, the new provision would allow construction, but not operation, of a new air contaminant, source or associated control device so long as the applicant submitted an administratively complete application to the Division. This allowance for construction included several exceptions, and those are noted in our slides from the July meeting. As noted in our July 2024 presentation, Session Law 2024-1 revised the effective date of the subject provision. Delaying the effective date specifically required the Division to prepare and submit to the US EPA for approval a state implementation plan or SIP amendment based on changes to the air permitting program in Section 12.11 of Session Law 2023-134, by July 1, 2025. Then the provision will become effective on the first day of the month that is sixty days after the DEQ Secretary certifies to the Revisor of Statutes that EPA has approved an amendment to our SIP. Questions were raised during the July 2024mAQC meeting, and the DAQ, in response to those questions, committed to get EPA’s comments on this concept prior to moving forward with the entire rulemaking process. On September 10th, 2024, and consistent with Session Law 2024-1 requirements, DAQ requested that EPA propose approval of the proposed SIP revision via parallel processing or in the alternative, provide an explanation as to why they could not propose approval of those amendments. That request letter is attached to the agenda materials here today. That's the September 10th, 2024, request from the Division. On September 30th, 2024, EPA responded indicating that they are not proceeding with the request to propose 5 approval because of the complex nature of these changes and the concerns outlined in their comments, and that response letter is also posted to the agenda materials provided here today. So, Mr. Chairman, the short summary is the Division has fulfilled its obligations under Session Law 2024-1 by submitting a SIP amendment request to EPA and EPA responded. And with that, no further action is necessary on this particular item. That concludes my update on this, but I'll be glad to take any questions that you or the Committee members have. Chair Carter: Okay, I understand exactly where we are procedurally. I know this request was for parallel processing, which they declined to do. So, have we actually submitted anything to them for review and approval at this point? Director Abraczinskas: Yes, Sir, that was the aforementioned September 10th, 2024 letter and attached pre- draft rules on this matter. Chair Carter: Well, yeah, but those are pre-draft rules. That's really my point. So where do we stand in our rule making process? Director Abraczinskas: We presented a concept at the July meeting and committed to get these responses to the questions during that meeting and get an indication from EPA where we would be. We discovered that the parallel processing request would be the most expeditious route to get those answers and help us define our path forward on this item. Chair Carter: Right, but it's at least for us. It sounds like the next thing to do is bring forward the rule and take it to the Commission. Am I missing something here? Director Abraczinskas: Well, again, the legislation requires us to submit a request to amend the SIP to EPA. We did so and we received the response indicating that there were concerns and that they would not be able to move forward with that request. So, it brings back to the Committee the question that was posed to us in July: is it worth going through this entire rulemaking process if there was potentially going to be a problem once we submitted it to EPA. Should we go through that entire process or not? Chair Carter: Well, I guess I'm concerned. We've got a legislative mandate here. I don't disagree that we've fulfilled it in that we've at least asked for EPA’s advice. But we still have a statutory change that it looks like we have an obligation to implement, and I'm unclear why we wouldn't go forward with a rule in the normal process, send it to the Commission, and then send it to EPA. And if EPA wants to disapprove it, then they can disapprove it in a formal matter. But that letter is not a disapproval of a SIP revision because we haven't submitted that SIP revision. We submitted a pre-draft as I understand it and they've given us an internal decision out of from a Branch Chief. That's far from the normal disapproval process, Director Abraczinskas: I understand, but I will also share that that we know that the EPA staff and legal team did review this as a normal track parallel processing submittal. Commissioner Ellison: Mr. Chair. Are the EPA's objections issues that the Department can overcome in a response or in advancing the rule and crafting language in the rule? Director Abraczinskas: Thank you for the question. I don't believe so. I think the concerns raised by EPA are very much aligned with the concerns raised by the Division and our legal review of the provision that was in Session Law 2023-134. 6 Commissioner Ellison: Thank you. Commissioner Bailey: I don't have the legislation in front of me, but I was just curious. Do you feel like we've met the legislative mandate by merely submitting it or does the legislation require that we go through the rulemaking process? Director Abraczinskas: Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. The former, I believe we've met the legislative mandate Commissioner Bailey: Which means that you don't believe the rule making process is required as long as you've submitted it and EPA has replied yeah or nay? Director Abraczinskas: Yes, ma'am. That was what we attempted to do following the July meeting due to the nature of some of the questions and our responses to those at the July meeting of this Committee. Commissioner Bailey: Thank you EMC Chair Solomon: Mr. Chair, question. Just a procedurally, big picture: has DEQ talked to the bill sponsors to see if this is sufficient? What you're telling us is that there was a bill that was sponsored. That's all they wanted. Have you talked to the General Assembly? Because they'll be back in January if it's not what they want. We're going to say, well, we did this, and they're going to do something else, and we're going to be back in this boat. Have you talked to bill sponsors or anything? Director Abraczinskas: Thank you for the question. And no, Sir, we have not. EMC Chair Solomon: Thank you. Commissioner Smith: Mr. Chairman. It sounds like this is mostly a timing issue. As I understand it from Mr. Abraczinskas, the intent of the legislation was to get some response from EPA on whether these were approvable changes to the SIP before moving forward with rulemaking. So, it's not an issue of refusing to do rulemaking, it's an issue of waiting until we have a substantive EPA response to the SIP changes. Is that correct? Director Abraczinskas: Thank you for the question. Yes, and I'll also note that Session Law 2023-134 became law and when it became law, it was in effect, which triggered the rulemaking process which we brought forward and started in July. Session Law 2024-1 changed that effective date from the legislation being effective to somewhat of a conditional and delayed effective date of the provision provided that the State submitted a SIP Revision to EPA, and the SIP Revision is then reviewed and approved. Then it would become effective upon all the steps that I mentioned earlier: the Secretary advising the Revisor of Statutes, 60 days afterwards, and notification to all affected parties. So, that was an intentional change between 2023 and 2024 to put in an additional step to do what the Division has done. Commissioner Smith: Mr. Chairman, just a follow up. It sounds like the mandate under the legislation is not actually in effect at this point, is that correct? Director Abraczinskas: Yes, ma'am. That is, that's my understanding, yes. Commissioner Ellison: You stated a minute ago that you felt like you had met the legislative mandate. Is that your opinion, or has the Department Council weighed in on this? 7 Director Abraczinskas: Yes, we've had some discussions internally on that, but we can certainly look at that particular provision if you'd like. Commissioner Ellison: I just want to make sure. You think we're done, and that's probably very reasonable, but from a legal perspective, it might help to confirm that. Director Abraczinskas: Sure, I'll be glad to circle back with all of our legal team at an additional time if that would be helpful. Commissioner Ellison: Just trying to make sure we got it covered. Director Abraczinskas: Yes Sir, me too. Chair Carter: Thank you, Commissioner Ellison. I think that’s probably a useful exercise and I don't know that there's anything more to do today, but it sounds like we need to have that further discussion, I guess in January now. But I am concerned about this process, as I indicated, and whether or not we should seriously consider pushing ahead even if we know that the EPA is at least skeptical, if not opposing it at this point. I don't want to push that right now, but we need to find out more about that part of the situation. And quite frankly, the other part of this is, of course, there are going to be changes at EPA coming up in the next few months, with a new Administrator and new senior staff. So I don't know whether that will affect any of this or not. It might, it may not. Things may not change at all. So I think we're in a bit of flux on both sides of this. If you are agreeable, Mr. Chair, then we'll defer doing anything further on this until January. EMC Chair Solomon: Yeah, I think that the request from Commissioner Ellison is to look at this legally or however else you need to look at it. My concern is what I just stated. I don't want anyone to roll back in here and get in an argument about whether we have given them what they want or expect. I should say I don't know what they want, what they expect, or what they can legally require of us. So just trying to set us up, as Commissioner Ellison said, to avoid a conflict here if we can do the legal research, so to speak, to clarify that. Thank you. Chair Carter: All right. I guess that takes care of all the pre-permitting activities or do you have something else on that? Director Abraczinskas: Nothing else on that. Thank you very much. But I think we understand the next steps. Chair Carter: Okay, I know you said you had some further remarks particularly well including the question I raised earlier about the EPA response on the air curtain incinerators. Agenda Item V-2, Director’s Remarks (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) Director Abraczinskas: Yes, Sir, I have number of updates and remarks this morning. I'll start with a quick update on our Exceptional Events demonstration. You've heard us mention that several times related to our PM2.5 designations process. We expect to release that Exceptional Events demonstration for a 30-day 8 comment period in the coming week or so. So be on the lookout for that. We'll be providing a summary presentation to the Committee at an upcoming meeting. Our Division remains very engaged on the Hurricane Helene response activities, doing so with a heavy heart for those that have suffered losses in Western North Carolina. Our team in the Division of Air Quality spent a lot of time supporting federal, state and local entities, their contractors, and individual citizens, with technical assistance related to managing disaster debris. We are part of a team that is leading those statewide efforts. Much of our involvement, led by Deputy Director Taylor Hartsfield, focuses on helping folks avoid mistakes in managing this debris, mistakes that could potentially make them ineligible for FEMA reimbursement later. We've also developed 3 guidance documents and put them on our website, and they're disseminating them to all parties that will assist in this matter. As part of that effort, we're providing technical assistance to local governments that are wanting to use air curtain incinerators for management of vegetative debris, yard waste, and clean lumber. We're helping them navigate these pretty complicated federal regulations that apply to certain types of air curtain incinerators. We've discovered along the way that some of the provisions in some of those federal regulations don't make a lot of sense for this particular situation or a situation like this one. So, we sent a letter to EPA on October 24, 2024 requesting some conditioned relief for particular permitting provisions, notification requirements, and throughput limitations that we believe are somewhat complicating our response to this unprecedented disaster. EPA responded to that request on November 6, including a notification that the EPA Administrator had just signed a technical corrections notice on November 4, addressing one of our particular concerns, and we're very appreciative of EPA’s response to these concerns. That particular response addressed allowing temporary disaster debris burning in new OSWI units or new OSWI ACIs without a Title V permit. So again, some of the concept item you heard earlier is related to Title V permitting requirements being taken away for certain OSWI ACI units. This one would allow temporary disaster debris burning for new OSWI ACI units that fall under the new source performance standards, and that we feel like that was a very appropriate and needed correction by EPA, so we were very appreciative of that. Our Division continues to work with EPA on some of the remaining issues related to temporary use disaster debris ACIs that process more than 35 tons per day, which are the CISWI units that Anna mentioned earlier. So, we will continue to work on that with EPA. I think we've identified a pathway, and we'll give you updates at a future meeting on that, but I think we will be able to get some of that additional relief for those units. Some of our motivations here for asking for this type of relief: First, there's just a tremendous amount of disaster debris to manage. Debris separation, best practices, and beneficial reuse are all being suggested, encouraged by our entire DEQ team involved. Burning, however, is going to be part of the portfolio of processing certain types of disaster debris such as vegetative debris, yard waste, and clean lumber. Use of air curtain incinerators in those cases is being encouraged by our Division, as opposed to open burning, very much so. The use of ACIs as opposed to open burning produces less fine particle pollution and is a safer alternative in the terrain in the mountains where there can be some significant wildfire concerns, especially since it's been so dry since the storm. So, the use of the ACIs reduces that risk. All of this aligns and coincides with our efforts to implement EPA’s new PM2.5 standard. We want the lowest particle pollution scenario for managing this disaster debris. Additionally, we want our local governments to be on the best possible footing and in the best possible position for FEMA reimbursements and we do not want non-compliance with a federal ACI regulation related to permits or notifications to be the trip string that impacts their FEMA reimbursement. We are most 9 certainly going to follow and track all of these units, and all of the other requirements will still apply. Regarding other activities that we're involved in, our Division provided provisions… EMC Chair Solomon: Mr. Chair, I have a question that is probably going to come up tomorrow and I was going to cut it down today. You say you strongly encourage the curtains for debris and waste. Tell us more about what that means. If somebody comes in and says “I'm going to start burning” and you say that we encourage a curtain, when they say “I'm not going to do it,” what happens then? Do they wait two months for you to make some decision or send them a letter, or do they just do it and you say no harm, no foul? We are just encouraging it. What does ‘encourage’ mean? Because with the government encouraging something, I hear six months of spinning here. So, tell us about the process. Director Abraczinskas: Well, we certainly do not want to be an impediment or get in the way of the recovery efforts in Western North Carolina. We're helping folks navigate their options, and they have each of these options. They can legally do open burning if certain conditions are met and if certain components are not in there like synthetic debris. But air curtain incinerators are also an option for, you know, local governments that are managing large collection efforts. So, if they are interested in that, we're going to help them navigate these regulations, help get something that's sited properly that has the least impact to citizens nearby. I think we're just at that tipping point where those decisions are now being made. Deputy Director Hartsfield is shaking her head ‘yes’. We don't have a long list of these that are already requested, sited, in place, and operating, but we anticipate that will evolve over time. So, we're just making sure that everyone's in the best possible position, has great information, and that they know where to go to get good information and answers. But there is not going to be a lengthy prolonged protracted process for this. We are going to take them by the hand and lead them through the process. Chair Carter: I assume it'd be fair to say you're going to encourage the use of air curtain incinerators. Director Abraczinskas: We certainly are. Chair Carter: But not demand it. Director Abraczinskas: Yes, Sir. Commissioner Bailey: How much open burning is being done right now, as they're gathering everything up, and have you had violations, or are you even looking at violations? So just what's going on now with open burning and how are you managing it? Director Abraczinskas: That's a great question, Commissioner Bailey. I'm sure since after the first couple of days, there's been open burning occurring, whether it's a citizen in their backyard, or larger efforts. We have not investigated and identified any particular issue since the storm occurred, but we're certainly going to be using our discretion in this situation. One additional thing that we assisted with was providing some conditioned relief to the open burning rules in the state's first disaster recovery bill. So those provisions still require the setbacks and time-of-day restrictions etcetera that exist in the rules. But we have not run into any particular situations yet, but we've been naive to say that it's not occurring. I'll talk a little bit about some monitoring that we're doing as well to complement all of this to make sure that these types of activities are not causing issues in our mountains. I'll touch on that in just a moment. 10 Commissioner Bailey: Just a follow up question. I know FEMA's out there as well as various different emergency personnel. Is the Division working with them when you're gathering all this stuff up and putting it in big piles? I'm just sort of wondering about on the ground, how can it be managed? I can see where individuals at their own homes might do some open burning to get stuff out of the way, but there's a lot of other stuff that I know is getting piled up in places, so how is your staff working with the bigger operations? Director Abraczinskas: That’s a great question, and I will defer that question to Deputy Director Hartsfield and also note as she's coming up to the podium, that our colleagues at the Division of Waste Management are a huge part of that, so it may be a question better posed to Director Scott and some of his folks a little later today. Deputy Director Hartsfield: Just to touch on some of the points about coordinating with FEMA, I'm on calls every week, every Tuesday and Thursday. They were daily calls, and we finally pulled them back down a little bit, but they were daily calls, even on weekends with FEMA, the US Army Corps of Engineers, other contractors that were being considered, as well as local partners on the ground. Both the Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section staff, and myself were involved. Right now, the primary focus has been getting debris out of right-of-ways and out of waterways. They haven't really gotten to the full debris management phase regarding whether or not we're going to chip material or put it in landfill. So far there has been more sorting and then deciding on the best management practice. But we're starting to have those conversations now. As far as disaster debris sites are concerned, I’m not aware of any open burning that's going on at those locations, but we have been contacted about future siting of ACIs at those locations, so we've provided a one-page guidance document that is specific to siting ACIs at disaster debris sites. We also have a specific guidance document for open burning at disaster debris sites, and then we have another guidance document for open burning at residences. We do know that open burning at residences is certainly occurring, but we just haven't gotten any confirmation of any disaster debris site doing open burning. We've heard primarily that they want to look at other options as far as chipping, maybe using that as firewood, and other options. However, there is concern about the landfill space in certain areas of the western part of North Carolina. But we do know right now that there is an ACI located at Buncombe County Landfill. I've been working and partnering with them and talking to them about siting criteria and making sure they're in compliance with the rules today. Commissioner Ellison: I was up there about a month ago and there's a lot of open burning going on. I'd suggest that your guidelines, however well-intentioned, are probably not going to carry a lot of weight with the locals because they're just dealing with it as they can. At the time we were up there, everyone was told to just pile their stuff up on the side of the road and FEMA will come by and pick it up later. A lot of people didn't have much faith in that, and a lot of the burning is necessary when mud slides brought a lot of debris down. They just cleared a relatively flat spot on the side of the hill on the side of the road and dragged a lot of stuff up there and burned it because they need to get it out of the way. Also, in a year, it will be a forest fire hazard. If you get a forest fire up there and you've got a big brush pile of hurricane debris that's been sitting there drying out, it's going to make that fire a lot hotter and potentially a lot more dangerous. So, there is a lot of burning going on, whether it's somebody burning on their own property or just the locals trying to clear the road and piling it up, it was everywhere. When you drive up and down those roads, you pass a lot of that burning. Director Abraczinskas: So, I mentioned monitoring and have a quick update on that component to this because that's an important piece and thank you, Taylor. On the monitoring front, I just want to highlight 11 one of the things we did before the storm. We took actions to protect our monitoring assets by shutting down monitors that are high elevation sites that were going to be getting the greatest exposure to wind. I'm very glad that we did because several of our sites experienced 100 mile an hour gusts. We did not lose any equipment, which I'm very happy to report, and all monitors that should be running are back up and running. But complimentary to all the prior activities I mentioned, we are proactively addressing concerns about the significant amount of burning of vegetative or woody disaster debris through the fall and winter season, which happens to be the time of the year when temperature inversions can occur in our mountain valleys, locking air pollution in place. And so we are deploying a number of non-regulatory monitors for fine particle pollution in strategic locations where we don't have any monitoring sites currently. Some of those sites are at our Asheville Regional Office near Swannanoa, Fairview, which is in southeastern Buncombe County, Lenoir, Boone and Hendersonville. Additionally, through the EPA Region 4 sensor loan program, we have borrowed and are deploying 11 air quality sensors, particulate sensors that we’re deploying in other locations throughout Western North Carolina. Most of those have been sited and staff are out siting the last couple of those this week. These additional sensors are providing what I'm calling this additional “indicator data”, which will help us inform the public with supplementary real time data that will be posted to EPA’s fire and smoke map tool and help our air quality forecasters in areas void of data. Thus far no unique issues have been identified at any of our regular monitors or any of these complementary non-regulatory monitors that we've put out in the field. But again, we think an important piece to our overall response is having that additional data. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks for today. I'll be glad to take any additional questions. Commissioner Ellison: A question about the nature of the smoke from burning: when you burn dry wood, how different is that compared to what they're doing now, which is burning relatively green wood, which takes a lot more diesel to get a good fire? What are the differences in that smoke? Director Abraczinskas: Emissions are higher for wet wood than dry wood, without doubt. You have the potential for greater amounts of smoke to be present as a nuisance. So yes, I think some of the best practices are sorting and letting some of the material dry for some period of time. In fact, just prior to this storm, we were still working with local government near the along the Pigeon River granting extensions to temporary disaster debris, air curtain incinerator sites. This was related to the impacts of Tropical Storm Fred in 2021. So we were still helping folks manage that dried disaster debris to go in an air curtain incinerator up until this storm came along. It will take some time, obviously, but I think the drier the material and vegetative debris, the lower the emissions profile can be. Commissioner Ellison: So, if you burn Greenwood, there's more smoke, right? So, you're saying there's more emissions, but a lot of that is just the moisture. Is there something chemically in the emissions that's significantly different between green and dry? Director Abraczinskas: I would need to defer to some of my staff on that particular question. I apologize. Chair Carter: The other thing you listed here is calendar and status, ongoing rule development projects. Is there anything to report on there? Director Abraczinskas: The only thing I'll highlight, Mr. Chairman is that we're anticipating possibly in January bringing back the rule set for GHG emissions from electric generating units. This is the 111(d) rule 12 set that we presented a lengthy concept on previously that may be ready to come forward in January, but we'll keep you posted. If not January, possibly March. Chair Carter: Now that's to implement what GHG requirements? Director Abraczinskas: These are the GHG emission guidelines under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act that EPA put in place earlier this year. State plans are due May of 2026 under that program, and I think Ms. Quinlan gave a fairly lengthy presentation on that concept at our July meeting. Chair Carter: Well, I do have one last comment, I guess, and then it will close out. But I was just revisiting the EPA letter, and I find it questionable that they're citing the PSD regulations in here as a reason for not proceeding with this because, as they admit later on the letter, the rules specifically exclude PSD sources from the allowance to start construction. So, I think there's some serious questions about this letter and we need that legal review and to look much more closely at this because I think it looks like EPA is playing kind of fast and loose with their regulations here in their objection to what we put forward. In any event, we can't settle that today, of course, but let’s see what you can find out and we'll deal with that in January. Does anybody else have any questions, thoughts, or anything you want to bring up while we have the Director here? Commissioner Weiss: Mr. Chair, just a comment. I really want to acknowledge Deputy Director Hartsfield in her coordination with her state and federal partners and also all the efforts that you, Director Abraczinskas, have mentioned that the department is making to try to ease the burden on Western North Carolina and help those folks out. I know it is heartfelt, and I appreciate your work. CLOSING REMARKS AND MEETING ADJOURNMENT Chair Carter noted the next meeting of the AQC is scheduled for January 8, 2025, and adjourned the meeting.