Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Quality Committee <br /> <br />Washington, DC <br />March 13,2007 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />North Dakota <br /> <br />Water-to-water discharge permit. The issue is that it discharges into Canada. In the first round, <br />North Dakota was sued for biota transfer, but North Dakota won. Now they're being sued on anti- <br />degredation. Should have a decision this week. The issue is Devil's Lake. <br /> <br />Ethanol plants need a lot of water; 2 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol generated. <br />Don't have surface water for them, but have groundwater. They recycle that water 4-5 times, so then <br />they have an issue of discharge. It is processed water. <br /> <br />Nebraska <br /> <br />Ethanol plants get their air permits first and then think about their water permits. When they <br />dump it into the local treatment plant, it becomes a challenge. <br /> <br />Getting water quality standards approved in Region 7 has been a problem. Having a meeting <br />with Denise Keehner, Efrain King and folks from Region 7 to try to work it out. <br /> <br />EDDW DISCUSSION - Denise and Shari <br /> <br />Tom gave a quick background of the issue and the Q&A document. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Opening topic in the Las Vegas meeting was what to call this initiative. There was good <br />discussion in Las Vegas, and there were a few areas where there seemed tobe broad agreement. There <br />also seemed to be many areas of disagreement. EP A took copious notes in Vegas and took comments <br />until the end of the year. <br /> <br />Shari: EP A undertook a "co-regulator" process with states to initially begin. EP A then took that <br />work, and developed a strawman, that they then solicited broader comment from stakeholder groups. <br />She agreed with Tom's characterization of the discussion (still a lot of disagreement). Once you get <br />stuck in that "existing use" place, it is difficult to move forward. <br /> <br />Shari described the various comments that EPA has received. <br /> <br />EPA now analyzing those comments, and are considering a path to move forward. Really laying <br />out where the policy differences are, and what the policy options are. Starting with "existing use." <br /> <br />Denise: When we started, it was triggered by early WSWC papers. It was important to Denise <br />that they understand where other stakeholders are on these issues. Were hopeful that there would have <br />been more common ground, but nevertheless believe the process has been very beneficial. <br /> <br />Process will be led by Ephrain King, who is very committed to working the process and .' <br />resolving it. <br /> <br />4 <br />