February 23, 2010 Meeting
DRAFT Facilitator’s Summary
The following notes are a summary of issues discussed and issues that may need further discussion at upcoming meetings.
Present for all or part of the meeting:
Workgroup Members: Nina Bell (NW Environmental Associates), Myron Burr (Siltronic/AOI), Michael Campbell (Industrial Dischargers), Rich Garber (AOI), Lauren Goldberg (on phone, Columbia Riverkeeper), Andrew Hawley (NEDC), Dave Kliewer (ACWA), Ryan Sudbury (CTUIR), Kathryn Van Natta (Northwest Pulp and Paper).
Other Representatives: Bill Blosser (EQC Chair), Spencer Bohaboy(DEQ), Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR), Jannine Jennings (EPA), Annette Liebe (DEQ), Andrea Matzke (DEQ), Neil Mullane (DEQ), Debra Sturdevant (DEQ), Jennifer Wigal (DEQ).
Also Present: Donna Silverberg and Erin Halton, DS Consulting Facilitation Team.
Welcome/Updates
Facilitator Donna Silverberg welcomed everyone to the meeting and conducted a round of introductions. Neil Mullane provided a brief summary of the EQC presentation that took place the week prior and said that DEQ planned to submit a new workplan/schedule to the EQC that outlines the path to a completion date in June/July 2011. Bill Blosser, EQC, commented to the RWG that with the parallel RWG/NPS processes, the Rulemaking Workgroup should feel empowered to declare their part of the effort finished, even if the NPS side is not yet completed; the two groups could then come together down the road to make sure the two packages meet up.
Announcement: EPA will host a PBDE/flame retardant workshop at the Ambridge Meeting Center in Portland Oregon on February 25th. Also, Congressman Blumenauer is introducing legislation for Columbia River toxics reduction which may create opportunities for funding future toxics reduction work.
Pollutant Specific General Permit
Spencer Bohaboy, DEQ, referred the group to a handout that provided information on the Long Island Sound General Nutrient Permit that was issued by the state of Connecticut. He reported on how this tool might be used in Oregon. Rulemaking workgroup members commented as follows:
• This tool could help with resource constraints.
• If this tool is to be applied broadly (to include human health criteria), then it needs to be put in a federal context.
• It will be helpful to know how EPA would handle the “exempt from an RPA” aspect.
• More legal information is needed regarding how many permittees would qualify to use this tool and how it would apply to municipalities.
Action: Rulemaking Workgroup members were “5 finger” polled on this tool and recommended that the tool be included in the ones that move forward.
Restoration Standards
Jannine Jennings, EPA, referred the group to a power point presentation handout of Florida’s proposal for Restoration Standards. She encouraged the group to comment on elements of the proposal that might work for Oregon. Rulemaking workgroup members commented as follows:
• Clarity is needed about the potential relationship to TMDLs, variance and compliance schedules.
• As with general permits, how do best practices or management fit in to the overall tool process?
• If sources reduced loading while a TMDL process was underway, the wasteload allocation would zero out; this might go a long way to solving the background concentration issue.
• There are many aspects of this “tool” that need more fleshing out.
Action: EPA will share additional information regarding the Delaware Bay PCBs.
Delayed Implementation
Dave Kliewer, ACWA, clarified the interest in having sufficient implementation tools in place to allow Point Sources to continue their operations while seeking to achieve compliance with the higher Fish Consumption Rate of 175 g/day. Rulemaking workgroup members commented as follows:
• How would a delayed/stepwise approach be legally viable in terms of the standards?
• Could there be a watershed specific approach? (Not sure there could be good legal justification if there were to be different criteria levels.)
• This approach might be useful to include along with other tools.
Action: EPA will review the legalities associated with a stepwise approach and bring information back to the group.
De Minimus Approach
Debra Sturdevant, DEQ, referred the group to a handout dated February 22nd. Michael Campbell asked the group to look at this option with a broad perspective and added that he thinks this approach speaks to the EQC directive to make meaningful change. From the legal perspective, the water quality standards have to protect human health. Campbell suggested that for carcinogens, a different risk level – such as 10-4 could be set for particular sources that face a background concentration issue; this would help them meet minimum requirements while still using 10-6 for NPS and TMDLs. Rulemaking workgroup members commented as follows:
• While the idea of a “relief valve” for carcinogens is appealing, am wary of the wording and the precedent it could set; need better clarification of boundaries for this tool.
• Clarify how best practices would play a role in this approach.
• Clarify how this tool would work for mixing zones and areas downstream.
• It would help to have DEQ play out a few specific scenarios.
Action: DEQ will clarify parameters for mixing zones and provide a few specific scenarios for the group to consider.
Offsets
Andrea Matzke, DEQ, acknowledged Ryan Sudbury’s work to gather information shared regarding offsets and referred to a document dated February 22. In essence, allowing offsets would allow a discharger to remove a certain amount of pollutant from other sources to compensate for the discharger’s own discharge. Part of the waterbody would exceed criteria for toxins, which is a concern of EPA. Ryan clarified that this tool would add more responsibility on the part of the facilities. Rulemaking workgroup members commented as follows:
• Clarify how this would work with TMDLs and the permit process; if offsets are done in the context of a TMDL, it would have a greater chance of success.
• Suggest examining the likelihood of meeting the criteria for this tool.
• There was general agreement amongst workgroup members that not enough was certain about offsets to consider using it as part of the rule package.
Next Steps/Wrap Up
Neil Mullane, DEQ, said that regarding the workplan for the next several months, DEQ planned to use a more structured process. He suggested that dates for meetings could be standard for each month and also suggested combining WQS Rulemaking and Non Point Source meetings. He said that DEQ planned to start using a “white paper” format for all topics and tools for group review and added that materials would be sent out a minimum of one week in advance of upcoming meetings. Neil said that the group could expect 9-10 more meetings to be scheduled and that the agenda for the meeting ahead would be drafted at the close of each meeting. He said that DEQ will also share internal management directives with the group, so that they can review them before they go to the EQC. The group took a preliminary look at dates that would work and identified Wednesdays and Thursdays as possibilities. Action: a Doodle query will be sent out by DEQ to help schedule the next meeting.
Group members acknowledged the work of Facilitator Donna Silverberg, as it was uncertain whether a contract extension would be put in place to support continued facilitation/note taking for this work effort.
These notes drafted and submitted by the third-party facilitation team from DS Consulting. For comments or changes, please contact Erin Halton at ehalton@cnnw.net or 503-248-4703.