NC0024881_PC-2019-0729_20191213

sv , THE CITY OF
•
tradatir—/
NORTH CAROLINA
-1 230 W.Morehead Street • Reidsville,North Carolina 27320 • [phone] • Fax[phone]
imp
December 13, 2019
RECEIVED
Mr.John Hennessy
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Supervisor DEC 1 7 2019
Water Quality Permitting Section NCDEQIDINR/NPDES
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
R.E. Corrected Notice of Violation (NOV-2019-PC-0729) &
Intent to Assess Civil Penalties
City of Reidsville WWTP
NPDES Permit NC0024881
Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Hennessy,
The City of Reidsville received the subject NOV and Intent to Assess Civil Penalties dated November 18,
2019. At the very outset of our response, the City wants to acknowledge that the issue of 1,4-Dioxane in
North Carolina waters may be an important water quality concern. The City shares this concern and
remains committed to addressing this chemical in our wastewater collection and treatment system. The
City, as the scope of this concern emerged several years ago, began to evaluate the potential for this
chemical to be present in our wastewater. Prior to DWR's completion of its initial monitoring study of
1,4-Dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin,the City began the process of reaching out to our
manufacturing sewer users to assess the potential for their wastewater to contain this chemical. We
have continued our efforts and have worked diligently to respond in a cooperative and collaborative
way with DWR.
Request for Consultation with DWR
We believe that the most productive path to making progress on reducing this chemical in our
wastewater is to continue our consultation with the Division and work toward the adoption of a
regulatory plan to achieve and document progress. As a result, our City Manager, Mr. Preston Mitchell,
has reached out to you to arrange a meeting to discuss the regulatory status of the City, review the NOV
and plot out a mutually acceptable process toward effective reduction of 1,4-Dioxane in our NPDES
discharge. It is our objective in this meeting to discuss all of the regulatory options available for
addressing this issue, including special orders and other appropriate approaches. We hope we will be
"Live Simply. Think Big."

able to have this meeting soon. We request that DWR reserve its decision on civil penalties until we
have had the opportunity to review with you the specifics of the potential violations noted in your letter
and to recount the significant efforts the City has completed and undertaken to address this pollutant.
This request is consistent with your NOV, which states on page 2, "If you wish to provide additional
information regarding the noted violations, request technical assistance, or discuss overall compliance
please respond in writing within 30 calendar days after receipt of this Notice." In keeping with that
invitation, we request a meeting with the Division to address these topics before any additional
regulatory action is initiated.
Review of the Potential Violations
While we are committed to making additional progress through consultation and cooperation, the City is
concerned about the specifics of the violations cited in your letter. We want to keep the regulatory
process moving toward improving water quality, but we are somewhat dismayed by the framing of the
alleged violations.
Alleged Violations of NC's Water Quality Standards
The NOV references the data provided by the City in its June 2019 monthly monitoring report,
specifically the detection of 1,4-Dioxane on June 12, 2019 at 367 ug/I. This value was measured in a
grab sample data collected from our effluent as requested by DWR. The City has and continues to
monitor for this parameter as directed by the Division. The Water Quality Standard allegedly violated is
found at 15A NCAC 02B .0211(12). The full wording of this standard:
(12) Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render
the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife,or
adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated
uses. For the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, deleterious substances, or colored or
other wastes shall include substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the
surface of the water or adjoining shorelines, as described in 40 CFR 110.3(a)-(b), incorporated by
reference including subsequent amendments and editions. This material is available,free of
charge, at: htto://www.ecfr.gov/;
This narrative standard was developed by EPA as part of the implementation of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. It was developed to capture the various, undefined (no
numeric water quality standard available at that time) components of petroleum products and
byproducts. For that reason,the narrative rule further defines the term as "substances that cause a film
or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface water or adjoining shorelines." The parameter of concern
here, 1,4-Dioxane, is a specific compound and not a generalized pollutant of concern. Its chemical
properties in water do not fit within the context of this standard. The EPA and DWR have characterized
1,4-Dioxane as an "emerging contaminant." EPA published levels that are considered risk assessment
values for certain surface water uses. EPA has not developed a Water Quality Criterion for this chemical
nor a finished water standard (MCL) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The information provided by

EPA is clearly identified as advisory. The EMC has not established a water quality standard for 1,4-
Dioxane nor has one been proposed. It is fair to say that the regulatory status of 1,4-Dioxane is not well
established at this point.
Further, the narrative standard's measure for determining a violation is that the instream concentration
"shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and
wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any
designated uses." The NOV references an effluent value in Reidsville's NPDES-permitted discharge. No
analysis of the potential impacts to downstream uses was provided. The City doesn't have an NPDES
discharge permit limit for this parameter. Additional information that would indicate a specific water
quality impact was not provided and the City knows of no reported issue downstream of its discharge on
the date the grab sample was taken.
As the City has stated, we acknowledge that there are concerns related to the presence of this chemical
in our discharge. We are proceeding with efforts to address this and to secure progress on reducing the
concentrations of 1,4-Dioxane in our discharge and seek to work with the Division to accomplish this
goal. However, we do not believe that our discharge level on the date referenced constitutes a violation
of the cited narrative standard.
Alleged Violations of NPDES Permit NC0024881 Conditions
The NOV also alleges potential violations under the NPDES permit, Part II Section E, condition (9)(a) and
Part IV,Section (C)(2)(c). Those conditions are reviewed separately below:
Part 11 Section E, condition (9)(a), Non-Compliance Notification
This permit language is reproduced as follows:
"9. Noncompliance Notification
The Permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate
regional office of the Division as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or
on the next working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence
of any of the following:
a.Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of
significant amounts of wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as
the dumping of the contents of a sludge digester; the known passage of a slug of
hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons,that render the facility
incapable of adequate wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of
pumps, aerators, compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass
without treatment of all or any portion of the influent to such station or facility.

Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report within 5
days following first knowledge of the occurrence. Also see reporting requirements for
municipalities in Part IV.C.2.c. of this permit."
The City knows of no "occurrence at the water pollution control facility which" on June 12, 2019 that
resulted in an abnormal discharge. The WWTP was operating normally. We have been monitoring the
level of 1,4-Dioxane in our wastewaters for several years now. We have consulted with our industrial
users and identified to a reasonable degree the potential of each of our manufacturing facilities that
discharge process wastewater to the treatment facility to have 1,4-Dioxane in their wastewater. We
have provided DWR with our data and consulted and discussed the characteristics of our facility and the
general production activities at identified industrial sewer users in the City's service area. We have
monitored our target industrial users and required them to provide monitoring of their discharges. We
have collected a considerable amount of data and documentation on our efforts and believe that DWR
at the regional and central office level are well aware of Reidsville's efforts. The use of 1,4-Dioxane at
each of our targeted industrial users follows an established production procedure, using raw materials
and processes that follow normal steps. We have pretreatment permits for our significant industrial
users under a DWR-approved Pretreatment Program that include notification requirements similar to
those in our NPDES permit. We have no notification or information that anything unusual occurred on
June 12, 2019.
Part IV, Section (C)(2)(c), Municipal Control of Pollutants from Industrial Uses
The permit language is reproduced below:
"c. The Permittee shall investigate the source of all discharges into the POTW, including
slug loads and other unusual discharges, which have the potential to adversely impact
the Permittee's Pretreatment Program and/or the operation of the POTW.
The Permittee shall report such discharges into the POTW to the Director or the
appropriate Regional Office.Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours
from the time the Permittee became aware of the circumstances.A written submission
shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the Permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances.The written submission shall contain a description of the discharge;the
investigation into possible sources;the period of the discharge, including exact dates
and times; if the discharge has not ceased,the anticipated time it is expected to
continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of
the noncompliance"
My previous response to the other referenced permit condition also speaks to this cited condition. The
City has consistently provided DWR with data and information related to the industrial contributors of
1,4-Dioxane. All significant industrial users to our treatment system hold pretreatment permits
developed under the City's approved Pretreatment Program and have been provided to DWR. We have
investigated all of the sources of discharges into our treatment system and discussed and evaluated the
production practices at the facilities. We have required our target industrial users to monitor for 1,4-
Dioxane, and we have been receiving and evaluating that data. Because there are no effluent limits in

our permit for 1,4-Dioxane,this parameter is not a limited pollutant under our pretreatment program.
DWR is aware of the City's efforts to engage its industrial users and we have been seeking actions that
will reduce the levels of 1,4-Dioxane in their wastewater. We have documented these efforts and are
continuing to make progress.
The City continues to investigate the industrial sources of 1,4-Dioxane and to take actions that will
contribute to improving the quality of our effluent. There have not been any unusual activities outside
of those that have been regularly documented and managed by our industrial users. The City has been
reporting and communicating with DWR from the outset about the nature of its industrial customers
and providing the data requested by the Division. We do not have any information that would indicate
that a notification to DWR under this condition was required on June 12, 2019. The City does not
believe it is in non-compliance with this permit condition.
The review is not intended to suggest resistance to working with DWR to develop a plan for addressing
1,4-Dioxane. Rather, it identifies issues raised by the NOV. It is our preference to consult with the
Division in an effort to cooperatively and productively work toward reducing 1,4-Dioxane levels in our
discharge. We welcome the opportunity to create a process to document progress and to reach
agreement on the appropriate steps toward improving water quality.
The City has promptly responded to the directives from DWR to monitor and report 1,4-Dioxane levels
in our discharge. We have also undertaken actions to require our industrial users to evaluate their
operations and to monitor their discharges. Prior to receiving the NOV,the City had not received any
notices or letters from DWR suggesting that our response to the actions required by DWR to address
1,4-Dioxane have been in any way inadequate. We believe our documented efforts represent a good-
faith commitment to finding solutions to this issue.
We look forward to meeting with you and others in the Division as soon as possible. Please let me know
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles Smith
Cc Reidsville City Council
Preston Mitchell
Chris Phillips
Andy Lovingood
Ben Bani
Doug Chapman
Forrest Westall