ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY

July 12, 2017

BRIEF
The Water Quality Committee (WQC) of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) atitsJuly 12, 2017 meeting:
  • approved the draft summary of the May 10, 2017 WQC meeting.
  • was given updates on the GenX evaluation and the North Carolina 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Program.
  • was given a report on the minor modifications for approved major variance for 2017.

WQC Members in Attendance:

Ms. Julie Wilsey, WQC Chair

Dr. Albert R. Rubin

Mr. Steven Keen

Mr. Richard Whisnant

Ms. Suzanne Lazorick
Mr. Mitch Gillespie

Mr. J.D. Solomon, EMC Chair

WQC Members Absent:

Dr. Stan Meiburg

Others Present:
Ms. Marion Deerhake, EMC
Mr. William “Bill” Puette, EMC

Mr. Charles S. Carter, EMC

Ms. Jennie Hauser, Attorney General Office

Ms. Shelia Holman, Department of Environmental Quality Assistant Secretary

I. Preliminary Matters

The Chair read the conflict of interest statement.The WQC approved the Meeting Summary from the May 10, 2017 meeting.The WQC did notact on any of the items in section II on this agenda, since they wereinformation items only.

II. Agenda Items

1. Update on GenX Evaluation

Ms. Linda Culpepper, DWR Deputy Director, gave anoverview of the GenX investigation. Ms. Culpepper’s talking points. Questions and answers (in italics) follows:

  1. What part of the body would be impacted?
    DHHScontinues tolook at all health studies and data available. There is not a lot of health data. DEQ has received toxicology reports from Chemours submitted to EPA under the federal Toxic Substance Control Act and has asked for Confidential Business Information approval to see all records filed with EPA under the TSCA registration.
  2. What is known about environmental fate and transport of these chemicals?
    GenX is persistent (does not degrade quickly) and hydrophilic, it likes to stay in water and therefore is hard to treat.
  3. Does the state have a way of controlling GenX through NPDES permitting?

The State looked at monitoring informationfrom EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) for 1, 4 dioxane, which was included in the UCMR round 3 along with PFOA/PFOS fluorinated compounds.EPA has issued a health level for 1,4-dioxane and we can calculate a surface water standard and require a limit for itin and NPDES permit after we have a wastewater laboratory test method certified for 1, 4 dioxane. For GenX, the Division of Water Resources is using the same kind of approach: need monitoring information, what are the sources, and do more rigorous monitoring thereafter.

  1. How sure are you that this is the only source of the GenX?

According Chemours, theGenX manufactured is not used by other companies in North Carolina. It isnot used by various manufacturingfacilities like we saw with 1, 4 dioxane.

  1. GenX wastewater is shipped in containers/portable tanksto other states for incineration.
  2. Will there be more problematic unregulated compounds and could they be from the same source?

There are other compounds generated from the vinyl ether process which generates GenX as a manufacturing byproduct. We have asked the EPA lab to analysis for these compounds, a few of which had higher concentrations listed in the Sun et.al. report which included Dr. Knappe and EPA’s work but there is little to no health studies on these compounds. There are not internal lab standards for some of the compounds.

  1. Where can the most current infofrom DEQ and DHHS on GenX be found?

DWR has an online map that shows the location and concentrations from our sampling efforts. It was requested that the map distinguishing the sample type (i.e. in-situ, raw water intake, finished water)

  1. Have soil components been looked at?
    Soils have not been analyzedat this time.
  2. Is there a way to test GenX in the soil?

We have discussed testing other media such as sediment and fish tissue with EPA.Currently I am not aware of available test methods. [Are there protocols established?]

2. 2017 Annual Report on Minor Modification Approvals to Approved Major Variances

Description
Ms. Karen Higgins, on behalf of DWR, reminded the WQC that duringitsMarch 13, 2013 meeting, it delegated approval of minor modifications to approved major variances of the Riparian Buffer Protection Rules to the Director of the Division of Water Quality (now Division of Water Resources). The WQC instructed the Division to provide an annual report to the WQC. This report provides a summary for April 2016 – May 2017 and indicates that there was no minor modification approved during this period. There were no comments made by the WQC on this topic.

3. Update on North Carolina 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Program

Description
Ms. Heather Jennings, on behalf of DWR, gave a presentation of an overview of the North Carolina 319 Nonpoint Source (NPS) Grant Program. Her presentation covered the following components of the state 319 program: history, federal changes in funding allocation, limitations in the control of NPS in NC which includes a change in the focus of funding to implementation of an EPA approved watershed plan rather than demonstration projects and nonpoint source management, and highlight successes achieved to date.The information presented on funding raised questions from some of the WQC members. Ms. Lazorick asked why are the (current) watershed projects concentrated north central to the western part of the state and none in the eastern part of the state. Ms. Jennings told her that it is easier to work in watersheds in these areas because of the smaller streams there and there is more community ownership in these areas to get people more involved with the state 319 program. Ms. Jennings explained that in the eastern part of the state efforts are being pursued to build partnerships and address the apprehension of residents of getting involved with the program. A WQC member raised concern about the impact of the federal budget on the state’s 319 funding. Ms. Jennings said that there was no funding for the projects in the federal budget as of right now. Ms. Deerhake asked how many applications DEQ received versus the number awarded. This year the program received 13 applications and DEQfunded 10 of them. Ms. Deerhake also asked if the 40% match requirement for funding wasa disincentive and constraint, and are there ways in which the state is working with nonprofits to meet the 40%. Ms. Jennings said that for 319 projects this has not be an issue. A lot of the projects that were just awarded were overmatched (at least 100% match) and this due to the strong collaboration the 319 program has with other state agencies such has Clean Water Management Trust.

III.Closing Comments –The WQC Chair stated that therewill be items that will be on the full EMC for tomorrow that were briefed at the Maymeeting including hearing officer requirements related to the rules readoption.

Summary was prepared by Linda Culpepper, Karen Higgins, Heather Jennings, and Adriene Weaver

1