Comments

I am submitting comments today on behalf of Nature Forward (formerly Audubon Naturalist Society), the Washington D.C. region’s oldest independent environmental organization. Our mission is to inspire residents of the greater Washington, DC, region to appreciate, understand, and protect their natural environment through outdoor experiences, education, and advocacy. In our conservation advocacy we prioritize human health & access to nature, biodiversity & habitats, fighting the climate crisis, and sustainable land use. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on GM24-2004.

We are writing today to strongly oppose GM24-2004 which will weaken environmental protections by reducing monitoring frequencies for certain Virginia Permit Elimination Systems (VPSES) through weakening the three-step protocol, loosening qualification criteria for reduced monitoring and removing the raised standard for reinstating increased monitoring requirements.

These proposed changes go against the original intent of these requirements of “providing incentives to facilities that demonstrate outstanding performance and consistent compliance with their permits.” (emphasis added)

Avoid weakening the three-step protocol: Falling back and weakening the three-step protocol would put water supplies, used by people and wildlife, at risk. The proposed guidance weakens Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) three-step protocol for evaluating compliance monitoring as stated in the current GM98-2005 – Reduce Monitoring Document. Where DEQ previously required increased monitoring for facilities failing to maintain compliance, the revised guidance only mandates a return to baseline monitoring, potentially reducing oversight for facilities with non-compliance issues. We ask that DEQ retain the existing, and stronger, monitoring requirement language. Ensuring we have robust three-step monitoring requirements, instead of weakening them, will protect people and wildlife from potentially being exposed to harmful pollutants and chemicals in our waterways.

Do not further loosen qualification criteria for reduced monitoring: Current requirements within the GM98-2005 – Reduce Monitoring Document state that facilities become eligible for consideration of reduced monitoring only upon having at least three years (3) without warnings or violations, a truly excellent standard. However, DEQ’s proposal would permit reduced monitoring for facilities with up to three (3) Warning Letters or two (2) Notices of Violation. This is inconsistent with the original purpose of the reduced monitoring program, which aimed to reward facilities with “outstanding performance” (emphasis added). Loosening monitoring hinders Virginia’s ability to do our best to protect our water supplies and the health of our streams and watersheds, especially as we face extreme weather events due to climate change, such as the flood we recently experienced with Hurricane Helene.

Retain raised standards for reinstating increased monitoring: The proposed guidance now only requires reinstatement of baseline monitoring following a Notice of Violation, contrasting with the previous protocol that triggered increased monitoring for any Letter of Noncompliance, NOV, or unsatisfactory lab result. We ask that DEQ retain Virginia’s stronger requirements for increased monitoring following a Letter of Noncompliance or NOV, and not link Virginia’s requirements to weaker EPA standards. Retaining DEQ’s previous approach will better ensure facilities are closely monitoring their operations after a violation.

In summary, we urge you to reject this GM24-2004. We further urge Virginia to consider increasing, rather than decreasing, monitoring under the VPDES in permitted facilities. Weakening and reducing monitoring would reward polluters, fails to fully reward and incentivize non-polluters, and puts the health, safety, and well-being of water for our community and wildlife at risk.

Thank you for the consideration of these comments,

Renee Grebe

Northern Virginia Conservation Advocate

Nature Forward

Special Considerations:

Under Exceptions, the situations where higher monitoring may be appropriate should be expanded to include species of greatest conservation need, which encompasses a greater number of keystone species in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Accountability

The provision allowing facilities with a history of violations to qualify for reduced monitoring provided they fall below thresholds such as three or more Warning Letters (WLs) or two or more Notices of Violations, may undermine accountability for repeat violators. JRA would prefer more stringent qualification standards, as reduced monitoring is intended for “permittees having exemplary operations,” per GM #98-2005. 

Additionally, the proposed guidance allows facilities to qualify for reduced monitoring "even if a reduction was granted during the previous reissuance," which would be extremely generous.  

Transparency and Data Quality

While the memo emphasizes that reduced monitoring does not exempt facilities from controlling pollutant levels and variability (p. 6), there is a possibility that the public might perceive reduced monitoring as a weakening of oversight, thereby eroding trust in the regulatory process.

Additionally, JRA would recommend that collected data be made available to the public via the DEQ website to increase transparency.

Temperature

JRA would prefer a specific temperature figure to be put in place, rather than a case-by-case basis. As we understand from migratory fish species, variations in the temperature of water bodies due to discharge can have significant negative impacts on spawning behavior.