Greensboro Special Order by Consent

Hearing Officer’s Report of Proceedings
December 9, 2020, Public Hearing Special Order by Consent (SOC)
City of Greensboro – T.Z. Osborne WWTP – Guilford County I. History / Background

The City of Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) currently operates
as a 40 million gallons per day (MGD) designed capacity wastewater treatment plant that
discharges to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin and currently utilizes tertiary
treatment technology (Figure 1). Following completion of its current expansion project (estimated
for completion in Spring 2021), the facility will have a treatment capacity of 56 MGD. The facility
was originally permitted in November 1981 under North Carolina National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit NC0047384. The current permit expired on June 30, 2019
but has been administratively continued as the City’s renewal application was received on
November 26, 2018. The facility’s NPDES permit does not currently contain discharge limits for
1,4-dioxane.

In a November 2017 Technical Fact Sheet (Fact Sheet), the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) describes 1,4-dioxane as “a synthetic industrial chemical that is
completely miscible in water.” Its primary historical use was as a stabilizer for chlorinated
solvents. The EPA Fact Sheet states that 1,4-dioxane is a by-product present in numerous goods
such as paint strippers, dyes, greases, antifreeze and aircraft deicing fluids, and in some consumer
and personal care products (deodorants, shampoos, cosmetics, etc.). The EPA states in its Fact
Sheet (Appendix N) “the physical and chemical properties and behavior of 1,4-dioxane create
challenges for its characterization and treatment. It is highly mobile and does not readily
biodegrade in the environment.” These properties, plus its widespread presence in industrial and
consumer products, cause the compound to be identifiable in quantifiable concentrations in
groundwater and within surface waters downstream of industrialized and urbanized areas. 1,4-
dioxane can enter a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) as a constituent of industrial and
domestic wastewater. Most wastewater treatment plants are not currently designed to remove
compounds such as 1,4-dioxane; therefore, it can pass through the treatment system and enter
surface waters as part of the effluent discharge.
A1

EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) has classified 1,4-dioxane as likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. A Federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) has not been established
for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water. EPA issued a Health Advisory for 1,4-dioxane (Appendix O)
recommending concentrations not exceed 35 µg/L in drinking water as protection of a 1 in 10,000
excess estimated lifetime cancer risk. EPA risk assessments indicate the drinking water
concentration representing a 1 in 1,000,000 excess estimated lifetime cancer risk level for 1,4-
dioxane is 0.35 µg/L.

15A NCAC 02B .0208 provides the narrative water quality standard for toxic substances and
includes equations for translating the narrative standard to numeric values (referred to here as in-
stream target values). The narrative water quality standard for toxic substances and the
corresponding equations used to translate that narrative standard are critical to providing
regulatory values for substances that do not have individual numeric water quality standards The
in-stream target values calculated from using the translator equations in 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a)
are implemented and enforced as standards by the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) and their use in NPDES permitting is supported in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR §122.44).

The EPA’s Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) required public water
supply systems throughout the United States to monitor for the presence of contaminants,
including 1,4-dioxane, during the years 2013 through 2015. Results of UCMR 3 monitoring
indicated the presence of 1,4-dioxane in North Carolina’s public water was most prevalent where
the source water was from the Cape Fear River Basin. Based on these findings, the DEQ conducted
follow up instream sampling studies to better determine the concentrations of 1,4-dioxane and their
potential sources within the basin. Results of the DEQ studies found detectable concentrations of
1,4-dioxane downstream of the discharge point from the City of Greensboro’s T. Z. Osborne
WWTP.

As a result of this information, the City of Greensboro (the City) began a voluntary 1,4-dioxane
source identification and reduction plan starting in 2015, which included monitoring WWTP
A2
influent and effluent and the City’s wastewater collection system. By October 2015, the City’s
program had identified one of its Significant Industrial Users (SIU) as a quantifiable source of 1,4-
dioxane discharged to the T.Z. Osborne WWTP. The SIU agreed to conduct its own voluntary
source reduction program. Since implementing the program, the discharge of 1,4-dioxane from the
T.Z. Osborne WWTP has decreased by more than 50% for the four-year period from February
2016 to September 2020.

On October 31, 2017, after EPA Test Method 624.1 was promulgated in the 2017 Methods Update
Rule, the Division of Water Resources (DWR; the Division) issued an administrative letter to the
City which required them to begin monthly effluent monitoring at the T.Z. Osborne WWTP for
1,4-dioxane and to report the results on monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), beginning
with the December 2017 report. These results have routinely indicated the presence of 1,4-dioxane
in the WWTP effluent. The Division instituted its own sampling study of the T.Z. Osborne WWTP
effluent in October 2019, conducting monitoring of the discharge and sharing final data with the
City. Sampling effluent data from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharge has indicated instances
where the EPA drinking water Health Advisory concentration of 35 µg/L for 1,4-dioxane may
have been exceeded at downstream drinking water intakes. After an effluent concentration of 957.5
µg/L was observed on the City’s monthly DMR on August 7, 2019, the Division issued a Notice
of Violation (NOV) to the City on November 14, 2019 (Appendix P).

Per G.S. § 143-215.2(a), the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC; the
Commission) may issue, modify, or revoke a Special Order to any person whom it finds
responsible for causing or contributing to any pollution of the waters of the State within the area
for which standards have been established. The order may direct the person to take or refrain from
taking an action, or to achieve a result, within a period of time specified by the Special Order so
as to alleviate or eliminate the pollution. The Commission is authorized to enter into consent
special orders by agreement with the person responsible for polluting the water, and the consent
order, when entered into by the Commission after public review and comment, shall have the same
force and effect as a Special Order of the Commission issued pursuant to hearing.

A3
On November 21, 2019, the Division received an application from the City for a Special Order by
Consent (SOC) to address issues associated with 1,4-dioxane discharges from the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP effluent. The purpose of the SOC is to reduce concentrations of 1,4-dioxane being
discharged by the City into the receiving stream (South Buffalo Creek) to protect the drinking
water sources downstream of the T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent discharge.

An initial SOC draft was public noticed June 22, 2020, seeking public comment through July 24,
2020. Based on comments received during the initial public notice, DEQ revised the SOC the City
accepted. The revisions included a decrease of the SOC Year One compliance value to 50 µg/L,
language clarifications, and the addition of a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document to
answer questions received during the initial public comment period. The revised SOC was publicly
noticed on November 6, 2020, a public hearing was held on December 9, 2020, and the public
comment period closed on December 14, 2020. This publicly noticed revised SOC included:

• Upon the execution date of the SOC, the City would be required to increase its 1,4-dioxane
effluent monitoring frequency to weekly and meet the Year One SOC compliance value of
50 µg/L. The SOC included other requirements of the City such as further investigation of
1,4-dioxane dischargers and background levels of 1,4-dioxane that already exist in local
surface and drinking waters. The City would also be required to report by telephone to the
Division within 24 hours after receiving any data indicating 1,4-dioxane concentration
greater than 50 µg/L. In addition to any other reporting required, the City would be required
to submit a written report on Year One activities and data.
• Upon the first day of SOC Year Two, the City would need to meet the Year Two SOC
compliance value of 35 µg/L and continue weekly 1,4-dioxane effluent monitoring. SOC
Year Two would require the City to calculate a T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent 1,4-dioxane
mass balance using all collected industrial, domestic, commercial, drinking water, and
collection system data. Similar to Year One, the City would also report by telephone within
24 hours after receiving any data indicating 1,4-dioxane concentration greater than 35
µg/L. The City would also be required to submit a written report on Year Two activities,
data, and conditions.
A4
• The City would pay an upfront penalty of $5,000.00 as settlement of all alleged violations
related to 1,4-dioxane discharges beginning on December 1, 2017 through the execution
date of the SOC. Stipulated penalties for failure to meet the deadlines and requirements set
out in this SOC were also included.
• If the City could not consistently achieve the SOC’s effluent compliance value during Year
One, the City would be required to submit a report that considers the investigation of
alternate or additional treatment processes for removal of 1,4-dioxane at major industrial
sources as well as investigation of the technical and economic feasibility of treatment
technologies for the removal of 1,4-dioxane at wastewater treatment plants and water
treatment facilities.

A5
Figure 1. Map of the Piedmont-Triad area.

Pittsboro
Greensboro
T.Z. Osborne WWTP
Haw River
A6
II. December 9, 2020 Public Hearing and Comments Summary
A. Summary of November 2020 Public Notice of Revised SOC and Public Hearing

Public notice for consideration of the revised SOC and notification of a public hearing on the
matter were published in the Greensboro News & Record on November 6, 2020; Chatham News
and Record on November 12, 2020; Raleigh News & Observer on November 8, 2020; Fayetteville
Observer on November 11, 2020; and Wilmington StarNews on November 8, 2020. The public
notice directed those wishing to find more information about the revised SOC to the DEQ
website’s “NPDES Wastewater” page under the “Hot Topics” heading. The public hearing was
scheduled for Wednesday, December 9, 2020.

DEQ issued a press release on November 9, 2020 about the public notice. Press releases were also
issued on November 24, 2020, when the public comment period was extended from December 9,
2020 to December 14, 2020, and on December 7, 2020, as a reminder of the public hearing and
comment period. A public hearing was held on Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:00 pm via a
Cisco WebEx video conference.

Fifty-three (53) people attended the public hearing, including sixteen (16) staff members of the
Division of Water Resources, six (6) employees of the City of Greensboro, two (2) employees of
the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), two (2) employees of the City of Asheboro, three
(3) employees of the Town of Cary, three (3) employees of the Fayetteville Public Works
Commission, one (1) employee of the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority, one (1) member
of the Haw River Assembly, one (1) consultant for the Fayetteville Public Works Commission,
two (2) consultants for the City of Reidsville, one (1) employee of Shamrock Environmental, two
(2) members of the news media, and twelve (12) members of the public. The hearing was called
to order by EMC Commissioner Marion Deerhake, the Hearing Officer for the event.
Commissioner Deerhake offered opening comments regarding the hearing and its scope. A
presentation on the revised SOC was provided by Brianna Young, DEQ Division of Water
Resources Compliance and Expedited Permitting Unit. Commissioner Deerhake informed
attendees that all comments were due no later than December 14, 2020 in order to be included in
the record.
A7

Three (3) individuals registered in advance of the hearing to provide oral comments.

After ensuring that all attendees who wished to speak had been given that opportunity, the
assembled group was reminded of their opportunity to submit written comments on the matter by
noon (12:00 p.m.) on Monday, December 14.

Items providing documentation of the public notice, public hearing, and public comment are
identified in Appendices A through Q of this report.

B. Summary of Comments Received During Public Hearing and Public Notice Period on the Revised SOC with Responses

The Division received oral comments from three (3) commenters during the public hearing and
written comments from five (5) commenters by the comment deadline. The following is a summary
of the comments received during the December 9, 2020 public hearing and the emails and other
written comments received by DWR during the public comment period.

1. A common concern raised was that the current 1,4-dioxane compliance values within the
SOC are too lenient. Commenters recommended lowering the effluent compliance values
for both years of the SOC, with suggestions of 35 µg/L, 1.0 µg/L, 0.35 µg/L, or the current
discharge value at T.Z. Osborne WWTP. Some commenters stated that the SOC makes no
effort to encourage the City of Greensboro to reduce concentrations to the lowest possible
level.
Response: The North Carolina narrative standard for toxic substances [15A NCAC 02B
.0208(a)(2)(A)(ii)] sets guidelines to calculate an instream target value, which equates to 0.35 µg/L
for 1,4-dioxane in water supply (WS) classified waters (a value to protect the occurrence of 1
excess incidence of cancer in 1,000,000 people, referred to as a “1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk”). DEQ
negotiated with the City to set a Year One compliance value of 50 µg/L and to conform with the
EPA Health Advisory level of 35 µg/L (a 1 in 10,000 cancer risk) for Year Two. These compliance
values were agreed upon as the purpose of the revised SOC is to protect downstream drinking
A8
water sources at the EPA Health Advisory level of 35 µg/L. Based on public comments, the Year
One and Year Two compliance values will be decreased to 45 µg/L and 33 µg/L, respectively.
This also allows the City’s pretreatment program to work as designed and allows industry to
develop long-term solutions to decrease the concentration in the future. DEQ’s future goal is to
reach instream surface water concentrations lower than 35 µg/L for 1,4-dioxane. DEQ will take
future action at the end of the SOC to work with the City towards the North Carolina instream
target value of 0.35 µg/L. Reaching this instream target value is not possible at this time due to
technology limitations, sampling method limitations, and the need to address the sources of
background concentrations of 1,4-dioxane that have been discovered in surface waters of the
Piedmont-Triad area (Appendix M).

2. Commenters expressed concern about the issue of transparency and requested for City and
DEQ activities and documents (such as slug control plan and source reduction plan) be
available to the public.
Response: Based on public comments received, the proposed SOC shall require effluent sampling
results be posted on the City’s website, along with other documents required by the proposed SOC.
Some items the commenters requested be made publicly available (such as the slug control plan
and source reduction program) are part of the City’s delegated pretreatment program but are still
part of the public record and will be reviewed during DEQ inspections and audits. The public may
request information, at any time, if they wish to review it.

3. Commenters requested that the SOC require that downstream drinking water users be
notified of any potential spikes of 1,4-dioxane as soon as possible.
Response: The proposed SOC requires that the City report by telephone within 24 hours to the
Division’s Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO) after receiving any data (including any
individual result from a grab, composite, or split sample if taken) indicating a T.Z. Osborne WWTP
effluent 1,4-dioxane concentration greater than the SOC Year’s Compliance Value (45 µg/L in
Year One and 33 µg/L in Year Two). The City is also required to submit a written report on any
finalized data regarding the exceedance, its cause, effects, and its duration to WSRO within 5
A9
business days by email of the City’s first knowledge of the exceedance. Current laboratory
technology for analyzing 1,4-dioxane samples involves a waiting time for results of anywhere
between 3 to 14 days. Therefore, it is difficult to disseminate this information to downstream
stakeholders in a more timely fashion. However, if after review of sampling results DEQ
determines that the City’s effluent discharge has the potential to cause concentrations of the 1,4-
dioxane in downstream drinking water supplies to exceed the EPA Health Advisory concentration
of 35 µg/L, DEQ will notify the downstream water treatment plants as soon as possible. DEQ
currently notifies downstream water treatment plants of sanitary sewer overflows and other
releases that have the potential to impact drinking water.

4. Commenters requested that the City increase Significant Industrial User (SIU) monitoring
frequency to ensure appropriate pretreatment program supervision.
Response: Per 40 CFR 403.8 (Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and
Implementation by POTW), the City has been delegated authority to oversee its pretreatment
program; therefore, the City has the authority to determine the inspection frequency. The revised
SOC requires “select SIUs” (i.e., those sources discharging greater than 100 µg/L of 1,4-dioxane
to the WWTP collection system) be inspected two times per year; however, based on comments
received, the inspection frequency of these select SIUs will be increased to three times per year.

5. One commenter expressed concern that indirect dischargers are not adequately addressed
in the SOC and that such concentration loads should also be restricted to not exceed
established annual compliance values.
Response: Indirect dischargers are not point sources like some industries and, therefore, are more
difficult to monitor and control. Negotiations between DEQ and the City have determined that
addressing dischargers less than 100 µg/L is outside the scope of this proposed SOC. The purpose
of the proposed SOC is to protect public drinking water sources downstream of the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP effluent discharge by identifying and working with larger dischargers to the City’s
collection system.

A10
6. Commenters advocated for DEQ to create a clear and transparent long-term watershed
management strategy for 1,4-dioxane with 0.35 µg/L as its target value.
Response: While a comprehensive watershed management strategy for the entire Cape Fear River
Basin, as well as a watershed-wide water quality model, would be valuable, DEQ’s position is that
such efforts should be part of a larger basinwide program and are not achievable within the scope
of this SOC.

7. Commenters stated that DEQ should assist Greensboro to set a numeric value for the 1,4-
dioxane mass balance if the result exceeds the SOC Year Two compliance value.
Response: Year Two of the proposed SOC requires the City of Greensboro to calculate a T.Z.
Osborne WWTP effluent 1,4-dioxane mass balance using all data (industrial, domestic,
commercial, drinking water, collection system) and submit to DEQ. DEQ is willing to provide
assistance to the City if requested on how to develop the mass balance. The mass balance shall be
based on the SOC compliance values.

8. Commenters stated that DEQ and the City of Greensboro have known about 1,4-dioxane
discharges for years, and that it is unclear if the SOC will truly protect the drinking water
supplies.
Response: The purpose of the proposed SOC is to reduce concentrations of 1,4-dioxane being
discharged into the receiving stream in order to protect drinking water sources downstream of the
T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent discharge. This will be done by establishing a discharge
concentration level aimed to protect the public water supply intakes at the EPA published Health
Advisory level of 35 µg/L at the drinking water intakes.

9. Commenters stated that the City should already know what industrial polluters are sending
to their WWTP and implementing permit limits through the pretreatment program.
Response: By October 2015, the City’s voluntary source reduction program identified one of its
SIUs as a quantifiable source of 1,4-dioxane to the T.Z. Osborne WWTP.
A11

10. Commenters stated that SIUs should be identified and held responsible for treating their
own waste, and that the City and DEQ must require industries to stop discharging 1,4-
dioxane.
Response: By October 2015, the City’s voluntary source reduction program identified one of its
SIUs as a quantifiable source of 1,4-dioxane to the T.Z. Osborne WWTP. The SIU voluntarily
agreed to conduct its own source reduction plan, since which the discharge of 1,4-dioxane from
the T.Z. Osborne WWTP has decreased by over 50% from February 2016 to present.

11. Commenters stated DEQ has taken a different approach with the City of Greensboro on the
T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharge of unpermitted pollutants than that which DEQ took with
Chemours’ discharge of unpermitted pollutants.
Response: DEQ approaches facilities individually to address compliance concerns as each facility
in the state is unique in its circumstances. Chemours differs from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP because
Chemours has direct control over what is in its discharge. In contrast, the T.Z. Osborne WWTP
does not generate 1,4-dioxane. Its pretreatment program authority is intended to give the City
means to protect its collection and treatment systems by regulating the wastewater influent from
industrial sources. The City’s pretreatment program is inspected annually by the DEQ Division of
Water Resources.

12. Commenter stated that DEQ should revise the SOC or the EMC should reject the SOC if
DEQ does not, as the SOC takes a largely voluntary approach and is contrary to rules for
SOCs as the SOC makes no effort to hold the City of Greensboro to the best it can to
remove 1,4-dioxane or provide a pathway to achieve compliance with state water quality
standards.
Response: It is DEQ’s position that the proposed SOC will work toward protecting drinking water
sources for downstream users as the effluent concentration discharged from the City’s WWTP is
required to be less than the EPA drinking water Health Advisory of 35 µg/L by the start of SOC
Year Two. In addition to the proposed SOC requirement that the City meet these compliance
A12
values, they will also be required to perform other investigative actions. DEQ will follow the City’s
progress and work with the City towards reducing the concentration of 1,4-dioxane being
discharged from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP in its effluent. In the future, DEQ intends to work with
other WWTPs and/or industries across the state to address 1,4-dioxane being released into the
environment to achieve the 1,4-dioxane instream target value. In addition, in 2021, DEQ will
propose for the EMC’s consideration a 1,4-dioxane instream surface water quality standard as part
of the Clean Water Act’s required Triennial Review rulemaking.

13. Commenters stated the City of Greensboro currently has an unpermitted discharge of 1,4-
dioxane in violation of the Clean Water Act, and that the NPDES permit should have limits
for 1,4-dioxane added based on what technology can achieve.
Response: The City’s current NPDES permit expired on June 30, 2019 but has been
administratively continued as the City’s renewal application was received on November 26, 2018.
The facility’s NPDES permit does not currently contain discharge limits for 1,4-dioxane. However,
during this permit renewal review, 1,4-dioxane permit limits and monitoring will be part of the
evaluation, and DEQ will determine how to address 1,4-dioxane in the City’s new permit.

Table 1. Summary of public comments and responses
Comment Response
Current compliance values within the SOC are too lenient - values should be lowered.
SOC makes no effort to encourage the City to reduce to lowest possible concentrations.
The Year One and Year Two compliance values will be decreased to 45 µg/L and 33 µg/L,
respectively. Reaching the NC instream target value of 0.35 µg/L is not possible at this time
due to technology limitations, sampling method
limitations, and the need to address the sources of background concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in
surface waters.
Concern expressed about transparency. Request for City and DEQ activities and documents be publicly available.
Proposed SOC shall require effluent sampling results and other SOC documents be posted on City’s website. Public may request information,
such as inspections and audits, at any time.
SOC should require downstream drinking water users be notified of any potential
spikes of 1,4-dioxane as soon as possible.
Proposed SOC requires the City report within 24 hours after receiving any data indicating a
WWTP effluent 1,4-dioxane concentration
greater than the SOC Compliance Value.
Current laboratory technology involves a results
A13
Comment Response
waiting time of 3 to 14 days. If DEQ determines effluent discharge has potential to cause 1,4-
dioxane concentrations in downstream drinking
water supplies to exceed 35 µg/L, DEQ will notify downstream water treatment plants as
soon as possible.
City should increase SIU monitoring frequency to ensure appropriate
pretreatment program supervision.
The proposed SOC will increase inspection frequency of select SIUs to three times per year.
Indirect dischargers are not adequately addressed in the SOC and their 1,4-dioxane
loads should be restricted to not exceed
established annual compliance values.
Indirect dischargers are not point sources and, therefore, are more difficult to monitor and
control. Negotiations between DEQ and the
City determined that addressing dischargers less than 100 µg/L is outside the scope of this SOC.
DEQ should create a transparent, long-term
1,4-dioxane watershed management strategy.
Such efforts should be part of a larger
basinwide program and not achievable within the scope of this SOC.
DEQ should assist the City to set a numeric
value for the 1,4-dioxane mass balance if the result exceeds the SOC Year Two compliance value.
DEQ is willing to provide assistance to the City
if requested on how to develop the mass balance. The mass balance shall be based on the SOC compliance values.
DEQ and the City have known about 1,4-
dioxane discharges for years, and it is unclear if the SOC will truly protect
drinking water supplies.
The purpose of this SOC is to protect the public
water supply intakes at the EPA published Health Advisory level of 35 µg/L at the
drinking water intakes.
City should already know what industrial polluters are sending to their WWTP and implement permit limits through the
pretreatment program.
By October 2015, the City identified one of its SIUs as a quantifiable source of 1,4-dioxane, who then began sampling and source reduction.
SIUs should be identified and held responsible for treating their own waste.
The City and DEQ must require industries to stop discharging 1,4-dioxane.
The identified SIU voluntarily implemented its own source reduction plan, reducing 1,4-
dioxane discharge to the T.Z. Osborne WWTP by over 50% since February 2016.
DEQ has taken a different approach with
the City than it took with Chemours’ discharge of unpermitted pollutants.
DEQ approaches facilities individually to
address compliance concerns. Chemours has direct control over what is in its discharge. The
T.Z. Osborne WWTP does not generate 1,4-
dioxane. Its pretreatment program authority is intended to give the City means to protect its
collection and treatment systems by regulating the wastewater influent from industrial sources.
DEQ should revise the SOC or the EMC should reject the SOC if DEQ does not as
the SOC takes a largely voluntary approach
and is contrary to rules for SOCs. The SOC
SOC will work toward protecting drinking water sources for downstream users as the
effluent concentration discharged from the
City’s WWTP is required to be less than the
A14
Comment Response
makes no effort to hold the City to the best it can to remove 1,4-dioxane or provide a
pathway to achieve compliance with state
water quality standards.
EPA drinking water Health Advisory of 35 µg/L by the start of SOC Year Two. In the
future, DEQ intends to work with other
WWTPs and/or industries across the state to address 1,4-dioxane being released into the
environment to achieve the NC 1,4-dioxane instream target value of 0.35 µg/L.
The City’s NPDES permit should have
limits for 1,4-dioxane added based on what technology can achieve.
During the facility’s next permit renewal
review, 1,4-dioxane permit limits and monitoring will be part of the evaluation.

III. Recommendations

The Hearing Officer recommends that the Environmental Management Commission approve the
proposed SOC as presented in Appendix Q, which has been signed by the City of Greensboro, and
that the Chairman’s signature be affixed to the document to effect its complete execution.

Revisions include:
• Reduces compliance values for 1,4-dioxane in SOC Year One from 50 µg/L to 45 µg/L
and in Year Two from 35 µg/L to 33 µg/L.
• Clarifies that wastewater effluent analyses and reports are also required with sampling
throughout the SOC.
• Requires certain SOC documents to be put on the City’s website to increase transparency
of data and information to address 1,4-dioxane.
• Increases inspection frequency of select SIUs (those discharging greater than 100 µg/L of
1,4-dioxane) from two times per year to three times per year.
• Clarifies language of “meet” SOC compliance values to state the City “shall not exceed”
Year One and Year Two compliance values.
• In addition to the existing requirement to meet during Year One, add a requirement for the
City to meet with DEQ during Year Two on a quarterly basis to present progress updates
and provide a written meeting summary.
• Includes deadline for submission to DEQ of an implementation schedule for Best
Management Practices (BMP) that must be approved by DEQ before the City can proceed.
A15
• Adds direct callouts in the stipulated penalties table to the applicable SOC sections.
• Includes a stipulation that the SOC effective date shall not be prior to May 1, 2021.

IV. Appendices
Appendix A SOC Application
Appendix B Publicly Noticed Revised SOC Signed by the City of Greensboro Appendix C Public Notices of the SOC and Public Hearing
Appendix D Affidavits and Notices of Public Notice from the Greensboro News & Record, Chatham News and Record, Raleigh News & Observer, Fayetteville Observer,
and Wilmington StarNews Appendix E Pre-Registered Attendees Appendix F All Virtual Hearing Attendees
Appendix G Public Hearing Presentation Appendix H Emailed Comments Submitted by Therese Vick (Blue Ridge Environmental
Defense League) Appendix I Emailed Comments Submitted by Jeannie Ambrose (Private Citizen) Appendix J Emailed Comments Submitted by Emily Sutton (Haw River Assembly)
Appendix K Emailed Comments Submitted by Geoff Gisler (Southern Environmental Law Center)
Appendix L Emailed Comments Submitted by Mick Noland (Fayetteville Public Works Commission) Appendix M Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Appendix N EPA 2017 Technical Fact Sheet Appendix O EPA 2018 Drinking Water Health Advisory
Appendix P DEQ NOV to the City of Greensboro Appendix Q Proposed SOC Signed by the City of Greensboro
A16
5 M - 010
r-
Clty
J North
November 20, 2019
of Greensboro
Carolina Water Resources Department
Certified Mail 7015 0640 0006 72113612 Return Receipt Requested
NC Department of Environmental Quality
NPDES Compliance & Expedited Permit Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27600-1617
RE: City of Greensboro Special Order By Consent for T Z. Osborne NCDES Permit NCO047384
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed please find an original and two (2) copies of a Special Order by Consent Application package
that includes:
City of Greensboro SOC Application (with narrative for Parts IV. And VI.) signed by Steven D.
Drew, Water Resources Director
Hazen and Sawyer Engineers Certification (to address Part V.) signed by Aaron D. Babson, P. E.
City of Greensboro City Council Resolution authorizing the City of Greensboro to enter into a
Special Order by Consent with NCDEQ/Environmental Management Commission with signatures
of: Mayor, Nancy Vaughan; Mayor Pro Tern Yvonne J. Johnson; and City Attorney Charles Watts
Pleas eel free to contac me if you need additional information.
C
Ste en D. Drew
Water Resources Director
cc: Mike Borchers, Water Resources Department Assistant Director (via email)
Elijah Williams, Water Reclamation Manager (via email)
Bradley Flynt, T. Z. Osborne ORC (via email)
Martie Groome, Laboratory and Industrial Waste Section Supervisor (via email)
Alicia Goots, Laboratory Coordinator, (via email)
Andrew Kelly, City of Greensboro Assistant City Attorney (via email)
Julie Grzyb, NCDEQ, NPDES Supervisor (via email)
Lon Snider, NCDEQ, Winston Salem Regional Office Superviso
Glenn Dunn, Poyner Spruill (via email) 1
N Dir{lD R
21 NOV 2019
Nora -Discharge
Perini ttial Unit
PO Box 3136 C r•F;•n.sboro, NC 27402-3136 www.greensboro-nc Gov :33-:3i,i-t%I" I'Y (2489) TTY# 333-6930
A17
lg-07®
31-19 0r
RESOLUTION FOR A SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT (SOC)
BETWEEN THE.CITY OF GREENSBORO AND THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WHEREAS, Water Resources requests approval to pursue and negotiate a Special Order by
Consent (SOC) with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality;
WHEREAS, the T. Z. Osborne Water Reclamation Facility has a permit to discharge treated
wastewater to South Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Haw River, classified WS-V waters of this
State in the Cape Fear River Basin;
WHEREAS, the. discharge is allowed under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDES) Permit Number NCO047384 effective July 1, 2014, and expired on June 30, 2019, and
administratively extended until reissued by the state;
WHEREAS, the City of Greensboro has voluntarily worked to reduce the concentrations of the
unregulated constituent, 1,4-dioxane, discharged from the T. Z. Osborne Water Reclamation
Facility;
WHEREAS, the SOC will officially outline the steps that Greensboro will continue to take to
further reduce concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in order to protect downstream drinking water
sources;
WHEREAS, the T. Z. Osborne Water Reclamation Facility agrees to maintain and operate the
wastewater treatment system at its maximum level of efficiency, during the interim period ofthe
Special Order by Consent and thereafter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GREENSBORO:
That the City is authorized to enter into a Special Order by Consent from the Environmental
Management Commission and the City hereby authorizes Steven D. Drew, Water Resources
Director, to sign and execute this document on behalf of the City of Greensboro.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GREENSBORO ON THE 19t DAY
OF NOVEMBER, 2019 APPROVED AS TO FORM
Z ". e- (
DEPUTY CI CLERK
1
Clr
I rJO-4, M'
A18
9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT (SOC)
I. PERMIT RELATED INFORMATION:
1. Applicant (corporation, individual, or other): CITY OF GREENSBORO
2. Print or Type Owner's or Signing Official's Name and Title:
STEVEN D. DREW, WATER RESOURCES DIRECTOR
3. Facility Name (as shown on Permit)
4. Owner Phone:
5. Owner Email
4. Application Date:
T. Z. OSBORNE WWTP
336) 373-7893 (or)
Steve. dreniggreensboro-nc.gov
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
5. NPDES Permit No. (if applicable) NCO047384
6. Name of the specific wastewater treatment facility (ifdifferentfrom I.3. above):
SAME
II. PRE -APPLICATION MEETING:
Prior to submitting this completed application form, applicants must meet with the appropriate
regional office staff to discuss whether or not an SOC is appropriate for this situation. Please
note the date this meeting occurred and who represented the permittec:
Representative: Date: 10-23-2019
DEQ WSRO Staff: Lon Snider, Jenny Graznak DEQ Raleigh Staff. Jeff Poupart, Julie Grzyb
City of Greensboro Staff: Elijah Williams, Martie Groome, Alicia Goots
III. ADDITIONAL FLOW OR FLOW REALLOCATION: NOTAPPLICABLE
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.67(b), only facilities owned by a unit of government may
request additional flow.
Additional flow may be allowed under an SOC only in specific circumstances. These
circumstances may include eliminating discharges that are not compliant with an NPDES or
Non -discharge permit. These circumstances do not include failure to perform proper
maintenance of treatment systems, collection systems or disposal systems. When requesting
additional flow, the facility must include its justification and supporting documentation.
A19
4
If the requested additional flow is non -domestic, the facility must be able to demonstrate the
ability to effectively treat the waste and dispose of residuals. The applicant must provide a
detailed analysis of the constituents in the proposed non -domestic wastewater.
The total domestic additional flow requested:
The total non -domestic additional flow requested:
gallons per day.
gallons per day.
The total additional flow (sum ofthe above): gallons per day.
Please attach a detailed description or project listing of the proposed allocation for additional
flow, with an explanation of how flow quantities were estimated. Further, any additional flow
requested must be justified by a complete analysis, by the permittee, that additional flow will not
adversely impact wastewater collection/treatment facilities or surface waters.
IV. NECESSITY NARRATIVE:
Please attach a narrative providing a detailed explanation of the circumstances regarding the
necessity ofthe proposed SOC. Include the following issues:
Existing and/or unavoidable future violations(s) of permit conditions or limits(s),
The existing treatment process and any process modifications that have been.made to
date to ensure optimum performance of existing facilities, NOTAPPLICABLE
Collection system rehabilitation work completed or scheduled (including dates),
Coordination with industrial users regarding their discharges or pretreatment facilities.
Identify any non -compliant significant industrial users and measure(s) proposed or
already taken to bring the pretreatment facilities back into compliance. If any industrial
facilities are currently under consent agreements, please attach these agreements,
Date and outcome of last Industrial Waste Survey, "SEENARRATIVE
Whether or not the facility is acting as a regional facility receiving wastewater from other
municipalities having independent pretreatment programs. NOTAPPLICABLE
V. CERTIFICATION:
The applicant must submit a report prepared by an independent professional with expertise in
wastewater treatment. This report must address the following:
An evaluation of existing treatment units, operational procedures and recommendations
as to how the efficiencies of these facilities can be maximized. The person in charge of
such evaluation must sign this document.
A certification that these facilities could not be operated in a manner that would achieve
compliance with final permit limits. The person making such determination must sign
this certification.
The effluent limits that the facility could be expected to meet if operated at their
maximum efficiency during the term of the .requested SOC (be sure to consider interim
construction phases).
Any other actions taken to correct problems prior to requesting the SOC.
2
A20
VI. PREDICTED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The applicant must submit a detailed listing of activities along with time frames that are
necessary to bring the facility into compliance. This schedule should include milestone dates for
beginning construction. ending construction, and achieving final compliance at a minimum. In
determining the milestone dates, the following should be considered:
Time for submitting plans, specifications and appropriate engineering reports to DWR for
review and approval. NOT APPLICABLE
Occurrence of major construction activities that are likely to affect facility performance
units out of service, diversion of flows, etc.) to include a plan of action to minimize
impacts to surface waters. NOT APPLICABLE
Infiltration/Inflow work, if necessary. NOT APPLICABLE
Industrial users achieving compliance with their pretreatment permits if applicable.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TRE), ifnecessary. NOTAPPLICABLE
VII. FUNDING SOURCES IDENTIFICATION:
The applicant must list the sources of funds utilized to complete the work needed to bring the
facility into compliance. Possible funding sources include but are not limited to loan
commitments, bonds, letters of credit, block grants and cash reserves. The applicant must show
that the funds are available, or can be secured in time to meet the schedule outlined as part ofthis
application.
If funding is not available at the beginning of the SOC process, the permittee must submit a copy
of all funding applications to ensure that all efforts are being made to secure such funds.
Note: A copy of the application should be sufficient to demonstrate timeliness unless regional
office has reason to request all information associated with securing funding.
THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS APPLICATION
PACKAGE UNLESS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE
SUBMITTAL.
Reguired Items:
a. One original and two copies of the completed and appropriately executed application
form, along with all required attachments.
If the SOC is for a City / Town, the person signing the SOC must be a ranking
elected official or other duly authorized employee.
If the SOC is for a Corporation / Company / Industry / Other, the person signing
the SOC must be a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-
president, or his duly authorized representative.
If the SOC is for a School District, the person signing the SOC must be the
Superintendent of Schools or other duly authorized employee.
3
A21
Note: Reference to signatory requirements in SOCs may be found in the North
Carolina Administrative Code [T15A NCAC 2H .1206(a)(3)].
b. The non-refundable Special Order by Consent (SOC) processing fee of $400.00. A
check must be made payable to The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. IDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIM
c. An evaluation report prepared by an independent consultant with expertise in
wastewater. (in triplicate)
APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION:
NO MODIFICATION TO THIS CERTIFICATION IS ACCEPTABLE)
I, STEVEN D. DREW , attest this application for a
Special Order by Consent (SOC) has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the
best of my knowledge. I understand if all required parts of this application are not completed
and if all required supporting information and attachments are not included, this application
package may be returned as incomplete. (Please be advised that the return of this application
does not prevent DWR from collecting all outstanding penalties upon request). Furthermore, I
attest by my signature that I fully understand that an upfront penalty, which may satisfy as
a full settlement of outstanding violations, may be imposed. {Note: Reference to upfront
penalties in Special Orders by Consent may be found in the North Carolina Administrative Code
T15A NCfiC 2H .1206(c)(3)].)
Date G
of Signing Official
STEVEND. DREW
Printed Name of Signing Official
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE, INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL AND TWO
COPIES OF ALL SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND MATERIALS, SHOULD BE SENT
TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
NPDES COMPLIANCE & EXPEDITED PERMIT UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
IF THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A NON -DISCHARGE SYSTEM, THEN SEND TO:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1636
4
A22
NARRATIVE ADDENDUM:
City of Greensboro Special Order by Consent (SOC) Application - November 20, 2019
IV. NECESSITY NARRATIVE:
Please attach a narrative providing a detailed explanation of the circumstances regarding the
necessity of the proposed SOC. Include the following issues:
Existing and/or unavoidable future violations(s) of permit conditions or limits(s),
Although the T. Z. Osborne WWTP does not currently have an NPDES permit limit for 1,4-
dioxane, the City of Greensboro seeks an SOC to provide documentation and guidance for the
continued proactive voluntary activities to address and further reduce the levels of 1,4-dioxane
discharged from the WWTP. Our ultimate goal is to be good stewards of the environment by
protecting downstream drinking water supplied and water quality standards.
Coordination with industrial users regarding their discharges or pretreatment facilities.
Identify any non -compliant significant industrial users and measure(s) proposed or
already taken to bring the pretreatment facilities back into compliance. If any industrial
facilities are currently under consent agreements, please attach these agreements,
The City of Greensboro developed and implemented a 1,4-dioxane investigation and reduction
plan in 2015. The plan included a literature search, WWTP and collection system trunkline
sampling and analyses. We also facilitated meetings, in coordination with industrial users,
NCDEQ, and other WWTPs. After seven months of sampling, analyses, and data review, the
investigation indicated Shamrock Environmental Corporation (Shamrock) was the significant
source.
When notified, Shamrock voluntarily implemented their own 1,4-dioxane investigation and
reduction strategy that included source reduction and the addition of 1, 4-dioxane to their waste
characterization review for each client. In addition, Shamrock has committed to explore the
latest technology andpretreatment systemsfor 1, 4-dioxane reduction.
The City of Greensboro will continue to oversee the work with Shamrock, which could include a
consent agreement and/or a SIU Permit modification.
Date and outcome of last Industrial Waste Survey,
The City of Greensboro submitted an Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) to NCDEQ Pretreatment
Staff on October 1, 2019. Over 768 industrial users were contacted, surveyed, and/or visited
during the process. Five industrial dischargers were identified for further follow-up activities
Wastewater Permit Application submittal, on -site visits, etc.) to determine ifthey meet the EPA
definition ofSignificant Industrial User. A report on the final resolutions for the five outstanding
dischargers will be submitted to NCDEQ by January 1, 2020.
5
A23
t
VI. PREDICTED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The applicant must submit a detailed listing of activities along with time frames that are
necessary to bring the facility into compliance. This schedule should include milestone dates for
beginning _construction. ending construction, and achieving final compliance at a minimum. In
determining the milestone dates, the following should be considered:
Industrial users achieving compliance with their pretreatment permits if applicable.
SOC Year One:
Review and modify, ifnecessary, previous monitoring planfrom 2015
Revisit trunkline monitoring (1600 miles ofsewer line) at previously identified
junction locations, including North Buffalo Transfer Line
Determine other minor sources of I, 4-dioxane
Investigate and determine background levels of 1, 4-dioxane
Compile data, validate results, determine findings andfurther actions
Continue collaboration and oversight ofShamrock Environmental re: discharge of 1, 4-
dioxane
Review voluntary source reduction program and slug control plan
Increase inspection ofShamrock to twice per year
Contact, interview and survey identified minor sources
Report all T. Z. Osborne effluent 1, 4-dioxane results by email to NCDEQ as soon as all data
is received and has been validated, to allow NCDEQ to notify interested parties
Increase T.Z. Osborne 1, 4-dioxane effluent eDMR monitoring frequency to 2/month
when NCDEQ Special Study ends
Within 12 months ofeffective date ofSOC, submit report to NCDEQ on Year One activities.
SOC Year Two:
Work with minor sources to reduce or eliminate 1, 4-dioxane discharges
Based on NCDEQ Special Study including City ofGreensboro split sample data, determine:
Long-term achievable effectiveness of Shamrock's source reduction efforts and
resulting T. Z. Osborne WWTP effluent reductions
Calculate T. Z. Osborne 1, 4-dioxane mass balance using all data (industrial,
domestic, and collection system data)
Within 24 months ofeffective date ofSOC, submit report to NCDEQ on Year Two activities.
SOC Year Three:
Based on information generated in Years One and Two, determine, along with NCDEQ, a
T. Z. Osborne WWTP effluent target that is technically based, attainable andprotective. This
target would also include consideration ofbackground concentrations in incoming potable
water, domestic discharges, and other uncontrollable sources.
Conduct headworks analysis calculationsfor 1, 4-dioxane relative to target effluentluent
concentration
Implement headworks analysis via Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Permits
Within 36 months ofeffective date ofSOC, submit report to NCDEQ on Year Three activities.
31
A24
m
I.
Hazen
is
November 16, 2019
Technical Memorandum
To: Steven D. Drew
Director of Water Resources
City of Greensboro, NC
Water Resources Department
From: Patricia Drummey Stiegel, PE
Aaron D, Babson, PE
cc: Elijah L. Williams, P17
Matrtie Groome
Bradley Flynt
Re: Certification of TZ Osborne WWTP Treatment Capabilities
NPDES Permit No. N00047384
Special Order by Consent Third Party Certification of TZ Osborne WWTP
Introduction
The TZ Osborne WWTP is a conventional wastewater treatmentfacilitythat
consistently complies with effluent limits. It does not have treatment processes
designed to remove emerging constituents such as 1,4- Dioxane.
This memorandum addresses Section V Certification of the 4pplication
for a Special Order by Consent, Hazen
and Sawyer • 4011 WestChase Boulevard, Suite 500 - Raleigh, NC :27607 •919.833.7152
A25
Hazen November 16, 2019
1. Evaluation of existing treatment units, operational procedures and
recommendations as to how the efficiencies of the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP can be maximized
The T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant is a 40-mgd treatment facility designed to meet all
existing NPDBS permit requirements. Improvements are underway to expand the plant to 56 mgd and
upgrade the secondary process to Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR). Treatment processes at the plant
include preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary conventional wastewater treatment.
Preliminary treatment includes step screens followed by influent pumping. The influent pump station
has a firm capacity of75 mgd, consisting of four 25 mgd vertical, centrifugal non -clog pumps that operate
on variable frequency drives. Stirred. vortex grit removal follows the influent pump station.
The T.Z. Osborne WWTP has 6 primary clarifiers, 4 rectangular and 2 circular, which receive flow from
the preliminary treatment facilities,
The secondary treatment facilities at the T,Z. Osborne WWTP include the following; aeration basins,
secondary clarifiers, return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge (WAS) pumping and
aeration equipment for providing oxygen to the biological process, There are a total of 12 aeration basins,
with Basins 1-4 having twice the capacity of the other basins. The aeration basins currently operate in a
two -stage process. T,Z, Osborne WWTP has a total of 10 circular secondary clarifiers, 7 with a diameter
of 130 feet and 3 with a diameter of 160 feet,
Tertiary treatment includes filtration and disinfection. The facility has a total of 6 traveling bridge cloth
media falters, and filtration is followed by sodium hypochlorite disinfection, A total of 6 chlorine contact
tams provide contact time for disinfection. Sodium bisulfate is then dosed to remove residual sodium
hypochlorite before treated effluent is discharged to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The plant is operated in an efficient manner, The T.Z, Osborne WWTP is not capable of treating 1,4-
Dioxane and therefore, operational changes are not available to remove this constituent.
2. Certification T,Z. Osborne WWTP could not be operated to remove
1,4-Dioxane to achieve compliance with final permit limits
IA-Dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical_ and is often a by-product present in many goods, including
paint atrippers, dyes, greasers; antifreeze and aircraft deicing fluids and in some consumer products. T,Z.
Osborne WWTP operates under an existing NPDES permit that does not include 1,4-Dioxane effluent
limits. The plant is not designed to remove 1,4-Dioxane and does not have the capability to treat this
constituent with existing conventional treatment or after the completion ofongoing upgrades.
Special Order by Consent Third Party Certification of TZ Osborne WWTP Page 2 of 3
A26
Hazen November 16, 2019
3. The effluent limits that the facility could be expected to meet if
operated at their maximum efficiency during the term of the
requested SOC (be sure to consider interim construction phases).
Not Applicable for this SOC
4. Any other actions taken to correct problems prior to requesting
the SOC
The City of Greensboro submitted a "Corrective Action plan" to NC DEQ NP®ES/Pretreatment on
September 23, 2019, This document outlines activities by the City of Greensboro Industrial Waste
Section in relation to locating sources of and reducing discharges of 1,4-Dioxane to the Greensboro
sanitary sewer system,
Special Order by Consent Third Party Certification of TZ Osborne WWTP Page 3 of 3
A27
A28
A29
A30
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A39
A40
A41
A42
A43
A44
A45
A46
A47
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CONSENT ORDER
Public notice of intent to issue a State Consent Order to the following:
The City of Greensboro (P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136) has requested Special Order by
Consent No. S19-010 for its T.Z. Osborne WWTP, a 40.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility under the
authority of discharge permit NC0047384. The T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharges treated wastewater to
South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue the Order per Article 21 of Chapter
143, N.C. General Statutes, and other regulations. Compliance with this Order requires rehabilitation of
the wastewater to address elevated discharges of 1,4-dioxane. The City of Greensboro shall comply with
the NPDES permit limits with the exception of the interim limitations identified in the Order. This Order
will expire two (2) years from the SOC effective date.
A copy of the Order is available upon request by contacting Jenny Graznak of the Division of Water
Resources at 336-776-9695, or available online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater-permits. Written comments
on the draft Consent Order may be sent to the attention of Ms. Brianna Young, N.C. Division of Water
Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617, or may be submitted by email to:
[e-mail]. Please be sure to include “T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC” in the email’s
subject line. Comments on the proposed Order received no later than December 9, 2020 will be
considered in the final determination.
PUBLIC HEARING
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the
aforementioned Special Order by Consent from 6:00 pm until the hearing officer adjourns the meeting
on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. This public meeting will be held via Cisco’s WebEx
teleconferencing service instead of an in-person meeting. Speaker registration will end at 12:00 PM on
Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Information on the hearing and how to register can be found online at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater-permits.
A48

City of Greensboro T.Z. Osborne WWTP (NC0047384) Special Order by Consent
and Public Hearing Public Notice

Purpose: To receive comments on the proposed Special Order by Consent (SOC) between the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and the City of Greensboro for the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP (NPDES Permit NC0047384). This proposed SOC was first public noticed from June 22, 2020
through July 24, 2020. Based on the comments received on the proposed SOC, the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) has made changes to the proposed
SOC, and the City of Greensboro has accepted these changes. The updated proposed SOC is being re-
public noticed. A public hearing has been scheduled as well based on the volume of interest received
during the initial public notice period.

Documents:
Public Notice Announcement (PDF document)
Proposed SOC (PDF document)
Frequency Asked Questions (PDF document)

Please submit comments via any of the methods below:

Email: [e-mail] (Please type “T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC” in the subject line)

Postal Mail: NC Division of Water Resources (Attn: Brianna Young), 1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Voicemail: 336-776-9691 (Please state your name and any affiliation before commenting)

Public Hearing:

In the abundance of caution, to address protective measures to help prevent the spread of COVID-19,
DWR is scheduling a digital public hearing on the proposed SOC between the EMC and the City of
Greensboro for the T.Z. Osborne WWTP (NPDES Permit NC0047384). The public hearing will be
held via Cisco’s WebEx teleconferencing service instead of an in-person meeting.

Public Hearing Date and Location: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:00 PM via Webex
Comment Period Duration: Sunday, November 8, 2020 – Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Participants can join the meeting starting at 5:45 PM.

Cisco WebEx Link:
https://ncdenrits.webex.com/ncdenrits/onstage/g.php?MTID=e8221fc4b7c96729a1508f52e886d5124
Meeting Number (Access Code): 178 487 5557
Meeting Password: dHMTVgya798

Cisco WebEx by Phone: [phone] US TOLL
Meeting number (access code): 178 487 5557

* If you wish to speak at the digital public hearing, you must register, provide the required information,
and follow instructions on ways to join the public hearing. Registration must be completed by 12:00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 10481785-8D76-4200-868D-68F54419BB83
A49

PM on December 9, 2020. To register, please click the following link:
https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=3IF2etC5mkSFw-
zCbNftGRcM2xmuszROiks3JDQp2_RUOE83MDlQTDA5VUxHUFNDOTQzR0tDMElYUC4u

* For instructions on ways to join the public hearing, please visit our website at:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater-permits

* If you have technical difficulties, the following automated voicemail has been set up to receive your
verbal comments: 336-776-9691

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10481785-8D76-4200-868D-68F54419BB83
A50

PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617

NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CONSENT ORDER

Public notice of intent to issue a State Consent Order to the following:

The City of Greensboro (P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136) has requested Special Order by
Consent No. S19-010 for its T.Z. Osborne WWTP, a 40.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility under the
authority of discharge permit NC0047384. The T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharges treated wastewater to
South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin.

The Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue the Order per Article 21 of Chapter
143, N.C. General Statutes, and other regulations. Compliance with this Order requires rehabilitation of
the wastewater to address elevated discharges of 1,4-dioxane. The City of Greensboro shall comply with
the NPDES permit limits with the exception of the interim limitations identified in the Order. This Order
will expire two (2) years from the SOC effective date.

A copy of the Order is available upon request by contacting Jenny Graznak of the Division of Water
Resources at 336-776-9695, or available online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater-permits. Written comments
on the draft Consent Order may be sent to the attention of Ms. Brianna Young, N.C. Division of Water
Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617, or may be submitted by email to:
[e-mail]. Please be sure to include “T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC” in the email’s
subject line. Comments on the proposed Order received no later than December 9, 2020 will be
considered in the final determination.

PUBLIC HEARING
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the
aforementioned Special Order by Consent from 6:00 pm until the hearing officer adjourns the meeting
on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. This public meeting will be held via Cisco’s WebEx
teleconferencing service instead of an in-person meeting. Speaker registration will end at 12:00 PM on
Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Information on the hearing and how to register can be found online at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater-permits.

Date: __________________ ______________________________________________
for S. Daniel Smith
Director, Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management
Commission

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10481785-8D76-4200-868D-68F54419BB83
11/4/2020
A51
/
Public Hearing Scheduled for Special Order by Consent for City of Greensboro’s Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nov 9, 2020
The Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources (DWR) will hold a public hearing
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUftoisMQHja7xpLbARkvPyhjFh6ydWEmcy4kgn-2FZjbZWPfgVoOLKEoOxP-2FQVm1S0YjIKtsVxd26WbfkiELeB52OcKykZNgMfKo48cRLn9iG6Vx8tb-2FDQ3aXcxz2i8t72H-2FAS3Ws9cZ3FtfPDB-2FQVekc-3Dt4sg_B9Otf2NiCCHzonv8SELghBSSbuIbkc34xonBqezAIbc1jh5NZqBeiizZrgogfVYNzHMzRgRXWcmb-2FO7CgcJIQ3GEV2XAucgw145C-2FtawASWAsF9T9KnptL5l1M9YopWvEKDW5wucyOfAYGEatlk7hjv9iav65Ouh1j8LDcBmmVy4uDSaERSXAkZ2RABztI18RKdGpp6BWLDALIAo7aIhpxJd1zuhrD7Pqt6ErO2BjvnF0snetwIMiaYo5u1gZ4B-2Bdw8fWEFfju1iIiVe31R47ek5uacy76AedMHy2pCIPOLsF6zsnWHEoHfk1iShiznAMvpXyShDFopD73oHVt-2B6vYZZl1fF-2Bk9SUMQVmkuxeig-3D__;!!HYmSToo!N-vf4d-7hUuEye0OegmzpWGGJHtX2tfcUgh4J3ZueE54p8hgTq1a2vtv8GOmlb84f_3e$)
on Wednesday, December 9, 2020 on a proposed Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the City of Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUftoisMQHja7xpLbARkvPyhjFh6ydWEmcy4kgn-2FZjbZWPfgVoOLKEoOxP-2FQVm1S0YrJetp-2BFLtrJXoBugNWYJjNN-2FfHMiOoaHDJotUK78wc2ad-2Fu1A70H79fPSPYnIW0ZiXyu9uaojiJWLy3JntAOuI-3DXvmV_B9Otf2NiCCHzonv8SELghBSSbuIbkc34xonBqezAIbc1jh5NZqBeiizZrgogfVYNzHMzRgRXWcmb-2FO7CgcJIQ3GEV2XAucgw145C-2FtawASWAsF9T9KnptL5l1M9YopWvEKDW5wucyOfAYGEatlk7hjv9iav65Ouh1j8LDcBmmVy4uDSaERSXAkZ2RABztI18RKdGpp6BWLDALIAo7aIhp-2Banqj9YPthClh-2B-2B-2FVRAIMBGQ2FjUCTe5R-2FRU-2BF53OokHdhuVPLYyHbIZhyjt2EQ27b9xWMyx6bFShJYuhHfJVkorbJ8341tP1adzzas6TgSLoTq19xUngNV82OSHifUZl5mOWt32zFdzPdNDkZdN2s-3D__;!!HYmSToo!N-vf4d-7hUuEye0OegmzpWGGJHtX2tfcUgh4J3ZueE54p8hgTq1a2vtv8GOmlen4y-Vm$)
(WWTP) NPDES discharge permit. The proposed SOC addresses issues related to the discharge of elevated levels of 1,4-dioxane from the WWTP to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin.
1,4-dioxane is an emerging compound that EPA has identified as a likely human carcinogen.

Based on the level of public interest during the initial public comment period on the draft SOC, DWR will hold a remote public hearing. DWR has made changes to the SOC based on comments
received, which include an adjustment to the SOC year-one compliance value, language clarifications, and the addition of a FAQ document
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUftoisMQHja7xpLbARkvPyhjFh6ydWEmcy4kgn-2FZjbZWPfgVoOLKE2BFLtrJXoBugNWYJjOHLG4b3RJne1T3-2Fxwei15UKrQMVbEPnpCGHaB9TOkUsjvEqRb-2B4Cz8sN9sC8aQ5B8-3Dwafi_B9Otf2NiCCHzonv8SELghBSSbuIbkc34xonBqez2FO7CgcJIQ3GEV2XAucgw145C-2FtawASWAsF9T9KnptL5l1M9YopWvEKDW5wucyOfAYGEatlk7hjv9iav65Ouh1j8LDcBmmVy4uDSaERSXAkZ2RABztI18RKdGpp6BWLDALIAo7aIhp3TA7XrhmLGDCJx2BPEVo7hV038wpw2WVzHW4p-2B-2F9EPlQbx-2Fd3vZJaNVBFZLrAos5Nv2zd-2BmLQUhSxlR6-2FXG25FwZlteaI9mvuKZLf3mhds-3D__;!!HYmSToo!N-vf4d-7hUuEye0OegmzpWGGJHtX2tfcUgh4J3ZueE54p8hgTq1a2vtv8GOmlbsgswZG$)
to answer questions received from the first comment period. The City of Greensboro has accepted all of the changes, and the revised, proposed SOC is being provided for public input.

To prevent the spread of COVID-19, the hearing will be held remotely and the public is invited to provide comments online or by phone.

Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020
Time: 6 p.m. (Attendees may begin joining at 5:45 PM)
Join online: WebEx
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUcVY3EnzPYYgA0MRycBtoDTfvso5TN9r4jIMLBHPT0V5KYi-2B4UD3DE2yV_B9Otf2NiCCHzonv8SELghBSSbuIbkc34xonBqezAIbc1jh5NZqBeiizZrgogfVYNzHMzRgRXWcmb-2FO7CgcJIQ3GEV2XAucgw145C-2FtawASWAsF9T9KnptL5l1M9YopWvEKDW5wucyOfAYGEatlk7hjv9iav65Ouh1j8LDcBmmVy4uDSaERSXAkZ2RABztI18RKdGpp6BWLDALIAo7aIhpy175pPDWToyCMv2Bt-2FjrciLLInDSI8GVll-2FxEFJm3QssRe9Dry6k-3D__;!!HYmSToo!N-vf4d-7hUuEye0OegmzpWGGJHtX2tfcUgh4J3ZueE54p8hgTq1a2vtv8GOmlXmbhYFM$)
Join by phone: [phone]; (access code): 178 487 5557
To speak during the hearing, registration
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUcVfv4eCy3FLEcFKjGMvZjoAuUFlinuXbwrwXd-2BZk-2F02zVXugG-2BFWi6FYfvmGNzuXhIFN0wE-2F9QX1gcBbMLq6jNgJXn-2FcliUE5IvoYAHco2m6Q103kOduExzvjjxF0AiwcDhPa2B-2BgvkvM8xZPtD9h8-3D0VbV_B9Otf2NiCCHzonv8SELghBSSbuIbkc34xonBqezAIbc1jh5NZqBeiizZrgogfVYNzHMzRgRXWcmb-2FO7CgcJIQ3GEV2XAucgw145C-2FtawASWAsF9T9KnptL5l1M9YopWvEKDW5wucyOfAYGEatlk7hjv9iav65Ouh1j8LDcBmmVy4uDSaERSXAkZ2RABztI18RKdGpp6BWLDALIAo7aIhp-2FlTS9r5j5Bi-2FPDdyjELrlUg-2Fw9K6z8968HK1AkQ-2FLBZ0iZQ-2BUzYdIuuTjwVkzlRYh-2FXK2rIivVLrb1xeYF3o3t4AA-2FZv2hlnfRwAkTSgAiPy4VhK4CzeMGmoGv4AH6QKWk5bIr7rEft-2Bwx8iPfIqFU-3D__;!!HYmSToo!N-vf4d-7hUuEye0OegmzpWGGJHtX2tfcUgh4J3ZueE54p8hgTq1a2vtv8GOmldVj-i-h$)
is required by 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 9, 2020.

Select Language ▼A52
/
In addition to the public hearing, comments on the SOC may be submitted now through December 9, 2020 by emailing [e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])
with “T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC” in the subject line. Comments may also be provided by calling 336-776-9691 and leaving a recorded message. Please state your name and any affiliation before
commenting. Written comments may be mailed via USPS to:

N.C. Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
Attn: Brianna Young
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617

Comments received by December 9, 2020 will be considered in the final determination of this order by the Environmental Management Commission. Documents related to the proposal may be
reviewed here
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUcVfv4eCy3FLEcFKjGMvZjoAuUFlinuXbwrwXd-2BZk-2F02zVXugG-2BFWi6FYfvmGNzuXhIFN0wE-2F9QX1gcBbMLq6jNgJXn-2FcliUE5IvoYAHco2m6Q103kOduExzvjjxF0AiwcDhPa2B-2BgvkvM8xZPtD9h8-3DCImh_B9Otf2NiCCHzonv8SELghBSSbuIbkc34xonBqezAIbc1jh5NZqBeiizZrgogfVYNzHMzRgRXWcmb-2FO7CgcJIQ3GEV2XAucgw145C-2FtawASWAsF9T9KnptL5l1M9YopWvEKDW5wucyOfAYGEatlk7hjv9iav65Ouh1j8LDcBmmVy4uDSaERSXAkZ2RABztI18RKdGpp6BWLDALIAo7aIhp1yCfO7j48pmpTMt2FFXZpBY2ZQ9F-2BEd-2F5opzm5e-2FJj-2B46G5xEeGTta-2BlqadpJsoZ-2BC-2FvnCkhynyfC9gJ56Y-2Bck6Oo8Y3PtptvdqE90HC6KnDaWM7nawsUUAu6ow-2BSeD3aw5C3D__;!!HYmSToo!N-vf4d-7hUuEye0OegmzpWGGJHtX2tfcUgh4J3ZueE54p8hgTq1a2vtv8GOmldxOmm_7$)
.
This press release is related to:
Water Resources (/news/press-releases?field_agency_department_tid=438&field_agency_department_tid_op=or)
NCDENR (/news/press-releases)
Contact Information
Anna Gurney
[e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])
919-707-8604
Share this page:
 Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdeq.nc.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2020%2F11%2F09%2Fpublic-
hearing-scheduled-special-order-consent-city-greensboro%E2%80%99s)
 Twitter (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeq.nc.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2020%2F11%2F09%2Fpublic-hearing-scheduled-
special-order-consent-city-greensboro%E2%80%99s)
A53
/
Public Comment Period Extended for Special Order by Consent at City of Greensboro’s Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Nov 24, 2020
The Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources (DWR) has extended the public comment period to noon on Monday, December 14, for the
proposed Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the City of Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant
(http://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Surface%20Water%20Protection/NPDES/permits/S19-010-Signed-SOC-to-hearing-10-14-2020.pdf) (WWTP) NPDES discharge permit. The public hearing
(https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Surface%20Water%20Protection/NPDES/permits/SOC-S19-010-Second-Public-Notice.pdf) is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9, 2020.The proposed
SOC addresses issues related to the discharge of elevated levels of 1,4-dioxane from the WWTP to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. 1,4-dioxane is
an emerging compound that EPA has identified as a likely human carcinogen.
Based on the level of public interest during the initial public comment period on the draft SOC, DWR will hold a remote public hearing. DWR has made changes to
the SOC based on comments received, which include an adjustment to the SOC year-one compliance value, language clarifications, and the addition of a FAQ
document(http://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Surface%20Water%20Protection/NPDES/permits/S19-010-TZ-Osborne-WWTP-FAQ-final.pdf) to answer questions received from the first
comment period. The City of Greensboro has accepted all of the changes, and the revised, proposed SOC is being provided for public input.
To prevent the spread of COVID-19, the hearing will be held remotely and the public is invited to provide comments online or by phone.
Date:   Wednesday, December 9, 2020
Time: 6 p.m. (Attendees may begin joining at 5:45 PM)
Join online: WebEx(https://ncdenrits.webex.com/ncdenrits/onstage/g.php?MTID=e8221fc4b7c96729a1508f52e886d5124)
Join by phone:  [phone]; (access code): 178 487 5557
To speak during the hearing, registration
(https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=3IF2etC5mkSFw-zCbNftGRcM2xmuszROiks3JDQp2_RUOE83MDlQTDA5VUxHUFNDOTQzR0tDMElYUC4u) is required by 12:00
p.m., Wednesday, December 9, 2020.
In addition to the public hearing, comments on the SOC may be submitted now through noon on December 14, 2020 by emailing [e-mail]
(mailto:[e-mail]) with “T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC” in the subject line. Comments may also be provided by calling 336-776-9691 and leaving a
recorded message. Please state your name and any affiliation before commenting. Written comments may be mailed via USPS to:
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
Attn: Brianna Young
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
Comments received by noon December 14, 2020 will be considered in the final determination of this order by the Environmental Management Commission.
Documents related to the proposal may be reviewed here (/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater-permits).
This press release is related to:
Water Resources (/news/press-releases?field_agency_department_tid=438&field_agency_department_tid_op=or)NCDENR (/news/press-releases)
Contact Information
Anna Gurney
[e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail])
919-707-8604
Select Language ▼A54
/
Share this page:
 Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdeq.nc.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2020%2F11%2F24%2Fpublic-comment-period-extended-
special-order-consent-city-greensboro)
 Twitter (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeq.nc.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2020%2F11%2F24%2Fpublic-comment-period-extended-special-order-
consent-city-greensboro)
A55
/
Reminder: Public Hearing Occurs Wednesday for Special Order by Consent on City of Greensboro’s Wastewater Treatment Plant
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dec 7, 2020
The Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources (DWR) will remotely hold a public hearing on Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6 p.m. for the proposed Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the City of Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant
(https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Surface%20Water%20Protection/NPDES/permits/S19-010-Signed-SOC-to-hearing-10-14-2020.pdf) (WWTP) NPDES discharge permit. DEQ is accepting public comments until noon Monday, December 14, 2020.

The proposed SOC addresses issues related to the discharge of elevated levels of 1,4-dioxane from the WWTP to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. 1,4-dioxane is an emerging compound that EPA has identified as a likely human carcinogen. The City of Greensboro has accepted
all of the proposed changes, and the revised SOC is being provided for public input. Adjustments include a year-one compliance value and language clarifications. A FAQ document
(https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Surface%20Water%20Protection/NPDES/permits/S19-010-TZ-Osborne-WWTP-FAQ-final.pdf) is available for review.

To prevent the spread of COVID-19, the hearing will be held remotely and the public is invited to provide comments online or by phone.
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020
Time: 6 p.m. (Attendees may begin joining at 5:45 p.m.)
Join online: WebEx
(https://ncdenrits.webex.com/mw3300/mywebex/default.do?nomenu=true&siteurl=ncdenrits&service=6&rnd=0.9705059028422041&main_url=https%3A%2F%2Fncdenrits.webex.com%2Fec3300%2Feventcenter%2Fevent%2FeventAction.do%3FtheAction%3Ddetail%26%26%26EMK%3D4832534b000000045683585fce5cb4cfeff9dfb290e36a907710de5e2
Join by phone: [phone]; (access code): 178 487 5557
To speak during the hearing, registration(https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=3IF2etC5mkSFw-zCbNftGRcM2xmuszROiks3JDQp2_RUOE83MDlQTDA5VUxHUFNDOTQzR0tDMElYUC4u) is required by 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 9, 2020.

In addition to the public hearing, comments on the SOC may be submitted now through noon on December 14, 2020 by emailing [e-mail] (mailto:[e-mail]) with “T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC” in the subject line. Comments may also be provided by calling
336-776-9691 and leaving a recorded message. Please state your name and any affiliation before commenting. Written comments may be mailed via USPS to:
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
Attn: Brianna Young
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617

Comments received by noon December 14, 2020 will be considered in the final determination of this order by the Environmental Management Commission. Documents related to the proposal may be reviewed here
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=4tNED-2FM8iDZJQyQ53jATUcVfv4eCy3FLEcFKjGMvZjoAuUFlinuXbwrwXd-2BZk-2F02zVXugG-2BFWi6FYfvmGNzuXhIFN0wE-2F9QX1gcBbMLq6jNgJXn-2FcliUE5IvoYAHco2m6Q103kOduExzvjjxF0AiwcDhPa2B-2BgvkvM8xZPtD9h8-3DCImh_B9Otf2NiCCHzonv8SELghBSSbuIbkc34xonBqezAIbc1jh5NZqBeiizZrgogfVYNzHMzRgRXWcmb-2FO7CgcJIQ3GEV2XAucgw145C-2FtawASWAsF9T9KnptL5l1M9YopWvEKDW5wucyOfAYGEatlk7hjv9iav65Ouh1j8LDcBmmVy4uDSaERSXAkZ2RABztI18RKdGpp6BWLDALIAo7aIhp1yCfO7j48pmpTMtBxTMXQpEFbjP-2FFXZpBY2ZQ9F-2BEd-2F5opzm5e-2FJj-2B46G5xEeGTta-2BlqadpJsoZ-2BC-2FvnCkhynyfC9gJ56Y-2Bck6Oo8Y3PtptvdqE90HC6KnDaWM7nawsUUAu6ow-2BSeD3aw5CFV3a-2B-2Bk-3D__;!!HYmSToo!N-vf4d-7hUuEye0OegmzpWGGJHtX2tfcUgh4J3ZueE54p8hgTq1a2vtv8GOmldxOmm_7$)
.
This press release is related to:
Water Resources (/news/press-releases?field_agency_department_tid=438&field_agency_department_tid_op=or)NCDENR (/news/press-releases)
Contact Information
Anna Gurney 919-707-8604
Share this page:
 Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdeq.nc.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2020%2F12%2F07%2Freminder-public-hearing-occurs-wednesday-special-order-consent-city)
 Twitter (http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeq.nc.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2020%2F12%2F07%2Freminder-public-hearing-occurs-wednesday-special-order-consent-city)
Select Language ▼A56
A57
A58
A59
/
(/)
Username (Your Email)
Password
Search Again (/search/) |
Archives (/search/archive/)
Newest First Oldest First Keyword Relevance Sort
HOME (/)WHY PUBLIC NOTICES (/WHY-PUBLIC-NOTICES/)SEARCH THE NOTICES (/SEARCH/)REGISTER (/MEMBER/REGISTER)
SUPPORT & CONTACT INFO (/SUPPORT/)MENU »
Show results beginning at page:
Chatham News & Record, The Nov. 12, 2020 Miscellaneous Notices
PUBLIC NOTICE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CONSENT ORDER Public notice of intent to issue a State Consent Order to the following: The City of Greensboro (P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro,
NC 27402-3136) has requested Special Order by Consent No. S19-010 for its T.Z. Osborne WWTP, a 40.0 MGD
wastewater treatment facility under the authority of discharge permit NC0047384. The T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharges
treated wastewater to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue the Order per Article 21 of Chapter 143, N.C. General
Statutes, and other regulations. Compliance with this Order requires rehabilitation of the wastewater to address elevated
discharges of 1,4-dioxane. The City of Greensboro shall comply with the NPDES permit limits with the exception of the
interim limitations identified in the Order. This Order will expire two (2) years from the SOC effective date. A copy of the Order is available upon request by contacting Jenny Graznak of the Division of Water Resources at 336-776-
9695, or available online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-
branch/npdes-wastewater-permits. Written comments on the draft Consent Order may be sent to the attention of Ms.
Brianna Young, N.C. Division of Water Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617, or may be
submitted by email to: [e-mail]. Please be sure to include T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC in the emails
subject line. Comments on the proposed Order received no later than December 9, 2020 will be considered in the final
determination.
Showing results 1 through 5 of 5 (1 Pages)

GO
1
A60
/
PUBLIC HEARING - The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the
aforementioned Special Order by Consent from 6:00 pm until the hearing officer adjourns the meeting on Wednesday,
December 9, 2020. This public meeting will be held via Ciscos WebEx teleconferencing service instead of an in-person
meeting. Speaker registration will end at 12:00 PM on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Information on the hearing and how
to register can be found online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-
branch/npdes-wastewater-permits.
N12,1tc
Fayetteville Observer
Nov. 11, 2020
Miscellaneous Notices
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CONSENT ORDER
Public notice of intent to issue a State Consent Order to the following:
The City of Greensboro (P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136) has requested Special Order by Consent No. S19-
010 for its T.Z. Osborne WWTP, a 40.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility under the authority of discharge permit
NC0047384. The T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharges treated wastewater to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue the Order per Article 21 of Chapter 143, N.C. General
Statutes, and other regulations. Compliance with this Order requires rehabilitation of the wastewater to address elevated
discharges of 1,4-dioxane. The City of Greensboro shall comply with the NPDES permit limits with the exception of the
interim limitations identified in the Order. This Order will expire two (2) years from the SOC effective date.
A copy of the Order is available upon request by contacting Jenny Graznak of the Division of Water Resources at 336-776-
9695, or available online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-
branch/npdes-wastewater-permits. Written comments on the draft Consent Order may be sent to the attention of Ms.
Brianna Young, N.C. Division of Water Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617, or may be
submitted by email to: [e-mail]. Please be sure to include "T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC" in the email's
subject line. Comments on the proposed Order received no later than December 9, 2020 will be considered in the final
determination.
PUBLIC HEARING
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the aforementioned
Special Order by Consent from 6:00 pm until the hearing officer adjourns the meeting on Wednesday, December 9, 2020.
This public meeting will be held via Cisco's WebEx teleconferencing service instead of an in-person meeting. Speaker
registration will end at 12:00 PM on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Information on the hearing and how to register can be
found online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-
wastewater-permits.
11/11 5226594
StarNews
Nov. 8, 2020
Miscellaneous Notices
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO
ISSUE A CONSENT ORDER
Public notice of intent to issue a
State Consent Order to the following:
The City of Greensboro (P.O. Box
3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136)
has requested Special Order by
Consent No. S19-010 for its T.Z.
Osborne WWTP, a 40.0 MGD
wastewater treatment facility under
the authority of discharge permit
A61
/
NC0047384. The T.Z. Osborne
WWTP discharges treated wastewater to South Buffalo Creek in the
Cape Fear River Basin.
The Environmental Management
Commission proposes to issue the
Order per Article 21 of Chapter 143,
N.C. General Statutes, and other
regulations. Compliance with this
Order requires rehabilitation of the
wastewater to address elevated
discharges of 1,4-dioxane. The City
of Greensboro shall comply with the
NPDES permit limits with the exception of the interim limitations
identified in the Order. This Order
will expire two (2) years from the
SOC effective date.
A copy of the Order is available
upon request by contacting Jenny
Graznak of the Division of Water
Resources at 336-776-9695, or
available online at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/
water-resources/water-resourcespermits/wastewater-branch/npdeswastewater-permits. Written comments on the draft
Consent Order
may be sent to the attention of Ms.
Brianna Young, N.C. Division of Water Resources, 1617 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617,
or may be submitted by email to:
[e-mail].
Please be sure to include T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC in the emails
subject line. Comments on the proposed Order received no later than
December 9, 2020 will be considered in the final determination.
PUBLIC HEARING
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public
hearing to accept comments on the
aforementioned Special Order by
Consent from 6:00 pm until the
hearing officer adjourns the meeting on Wednesday, December 9,
2020. This public meeting will be
held via Ciscos WebEx teleconferencing service instead of an inperson meeting. Speaker registration will end at 12:00 PM
on
Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Information on the hearing and how
to register can be found online at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/
water-resources/water-resourcespermits/wastewater-branch/npdeswastewater-permits.
News & Observer
Nov. 8, 2020
Miscellaneous Notices
PUBLIC NOTICE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CONSENT ORDER Public
notice of intent to issue a State Consent Order to the following: The City of Greensboro (P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC
27402-3136) has requested Special Order by Consent No. S19-010 for its T.Z. Osborne WWTP, a 40.0 MGD wastewater
treatment facility under the authority of discharge permit NC0047384. The T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharges treated
wastewater to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Environmental Management Commission proposes to
issue the Order per Article 21 of Chapter 143, N.C. General Statutes, and other regulations. Compliance with this Order
requires rehabilitation of the wastewater to address elevated discharges of 1,4-dioxane. The City of Greensboro shall
comply with the NPDES permit limits with the exception of the interim limitations identified in the Order. This Order will
expire two (2) years from the SOC effective date. A copy of the Order is available upon request by contacting Jenny
Graznak of the Division of Water Resources at 336-776-9695, or available online at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater-permits.
Written comments on the draft Consent Order may be sent to the attention of Ms. Brianna Young, N.C. Division of Water
Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617, or may be submitted by email to:
[e-mail]. Please be sure to include "T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC" in the email's subject line. Comments
on the proposed Order received no later than December 9, 2020 will be considered in the final determination. PUBLIC
HEARING The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the
A62
/
aforementioned Special Order by Consent from 6:00 pm until the hearing officer adjourns the meeting on Wednesday,
December 9, 2020. This public meeting will be held via Cisco's WebEx teleconferencing service instead of an in-person
meeting. Speaker registration will end at 12:00 PM on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Information on the hearing and how
to register can be found online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water- resources-permits/wastewater-
branch/npdes wastewater-permits. N&O: November 8, 2020
News & Record
Nov. 6, 2020
Miscellaneous Notices
PUBLIC NOTICE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A CONSENT ORDER Public
notice of intent to issue a State Consent Order to the following: The City of Greensboro (P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, NC
27402-3136) has requested Special Order by Consent No. S19-010 for its T.Z. Osborne WWTP, a 40.0 MGD wastewater
treatment facility under the authority of discharge permit NC0047384. The T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharges treated
wastewater to South Buffalo Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Environmental Management Commission proposes to
issue the Order per Article 21 of Chapter 143, N.C. General Statutes, and other regulations. Compliance with this Order
requires rehabilitation of the wastewater to address elevated discharges of 1,4-dioxane. The City of Greensboro shall
comply with the NPDES permit limits with the exception of the interim limitations identified in the Order. This Order will
expire two (2) years from the SOC effective date. A copy of the Order is available upon request by contacting Jenny
Graznak of the Division of Water Resources at 336-776-9695, or available online at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waterresources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-branch/npdes-wastewater-permits.
Written comments on the draft Consent Order may be sent to the attention of Ms. Brianna Young, N.C. Division of Water
Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617, or may be submitted by email to:
[e-mail]. Please be sure to include "T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC" in the email's subject line. Comments
on the proposed Order received no later than December 9, 2020 will be considered in the final determination. PUBLIC
HEARING The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing to accept comments on the
aforementioned Special Order by Consent from 6:00 pm until the hearing officer adjourns the meeting on Wednesday,
December 9, 2020. This public meeting will be held via Cisco's WebEx teleconferencing service instead of an in-person
meeting. Speaker registration will end at 12:00 PM on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Information on the hearing and how
to register can be found online at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resour
Show results beginning at page:
1
A63
/
NCNotices.com is a service of the North Carolina Press Association.
© 2018 North Carolina Press Service | Please be sure to read our User Agreement (/static/mspn/docs/user_agreement_nc.pdf).
NCNotices.com is a service of the North Carolina Press Association.
© 2018 North Carolina Press Service | Please be sure to read our User Agreement (/static/mspn/docs/user_agreement_nc.pdf).
A64
ID Start time Completion time Email Name First and Last Name: Title:Employer/Representing:Email Address:Street Mailing Address: City, State, and Zip Code: Do you wish to speak at the hearing? How did you hear about this hearing?
1 11/10/20 21:09:10 11/10/20 21:16:02 anonymous KIRK REID MYSELF [e-mail] 1331 WEST FRIENDLY AVE GREENSBORO, NC 27403 No Webpage2 11/30/20 14:40:53 11/30/20 14:46:06 anonymous Rhonda Locklear W/R Environmental Programs Manager Fayetteville Public Works Commission [e-mail] P.O. Box 1089 Fayetteville, NC 28302 No Listserv
3 12/7/20 16:30:46 12/7/20 16:37:47 anonymous Mick Noland Chief Operating Officer, Water Resources Division Fayetteville Public Works Commission [e-mail] 955 Old Wilmington Road Fayetteville, N C 28301 Yes Email4 12/8/20 12:19:09 12/8/20 12:25:42 anonymous Emily Sutton Haw Riverkeeper Haw River Assembly [e-mail] PO Box 187 Bynum, NC 27228 Yes Webpage
5 12/8/20 23:14:57 12/8/20 23:17:28 anonymous Marrtie Groome Laboratory and Industrial Waste Section Supervisor City of Greensboro [e-mail] 2350 Huffine Mill Road McLeansville, NC 27301 No
6 12/8/20 23:17:37 12/8/20 23:19:39 anonymous Elijah Williams Water Reclamation Manager City of Greensboro [e-mail] 2350 Huffine Mill Road McLeansville NC 27301 No7 12/8/20 23:19:42 12/8/20 23:20:37 anonymous Alicia Goots Laboratory Coordinator City of Greensboro [e-mail] 2350 Huffine Mill Road McLeansville NC 27301 No
8 12/9/20 11:20:51 12/9/20 11:21:34 anonymous Geoff Gisler Southern Environmental Law Center [e-mail] Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Yes Email
A65
Event Name:Greensboro Proposed SOC Public Hearing
Event Date/Time:December 9, 2020 at 6pm
Attendance Count User Type FirstName LastName Email Invited Registered Attended
1 Panelist Jeff Poupart [e-mail] Yes No Yes
2 Panelist Marion Deerhake [e-mail] Yes No Yes
3 Panelist Jenny Graznak [e-mail] Yes No Yes
4 Panelist Brianna Young [e-mail] Yes No Yes
5 Panelist John Hennessy [e-mail] Yes No Yes
6 Panelist Lon Snider [e-mail] Yes No Yes
7 Attendee Martie Groome [e-mail] No No Yes
8 Attendee Mick Noland [e-mail] No No Yes
9 Attendee Anna Gurney [e-mail] No No Yes
10 Attendee Lisa sorg [e-mail] No No Yes
11 Attendee Jean Zhuang [e-mail] No No Yes
12 Attendee Ashley McGroarty [e-mail] No No Yes
13 Attendee Ashley McGroarty [e-mail] No No Yes
14 Attendee Monty Hagler [e-mail] No No Yes
15 Attendee steve tedder [e-mail] No No Yes
16 Attendee LAINE ROBERTS [e-mail] No No Yes
17 Attendee Nora Deamer [e-mail] No No Yes
18 Attendee Thomas Marino [e-mail] No No Yes
19 Attendee Robert Barker [e-mail] No No Yes
20 Attendee Jamie Revels [e-mail] No No Yes
21 Attendee Jamie Revels [e-mail] No No Yes
22 Attendee Kim Nimmer [e-mail] No No Yes
23 Attendee Anjali Orlando [e-mail] No No Yes
24 Attendee Michael Borchers [e-mail] No No Yes
25 Attendee Michael Murphy [e-mail] No No Yes
26 Attendee N B [e-mail] No No Yes
27 Attendee Kimberly Sowell [e-mail] No No Yes
28 Attendee Kurtis Proffit [e-mail] No No Yes
29 Attendee Meredith Hamilton [e-mail] No No Yes
A66
30 Attendee Sue Homewood [e-mail] No No Yes
31 Attendee GJ Sutherland [e-mail] No No Yes
32 Attendee Jason Green [e-mail] No No Yes
33 Attendee Dennis Hodge [e-mail] No No Yes
34 Attendee Sean Sullivan [e-mail] No No Yes
35 Attendee Jim H [e-mail] No No Yes
36 Attendee Jaime Robinson [e-mail] No No Yes
37 Attendee Sarah Braman [e-mail] No No Yes
38 Attendee Sarah Braman [e-mail] No No Yes
39 Attendee Tammy H [e-mail] No No Yes
40 Attendee isaac groves [e-mail] No No Yes
41 Attendee Elijah Williams [e-mail] No No Yes
42 Attendee Emily Sutton [e-mail] No No Yes
43 Attendee Kent Wiggins [e-mail] No No Yes
44 Attendee Michele Dawes [e-mail] No No Yes
45 Attendee Geoff Gisler [e-mail] No No Yes
46 Attendee Robert Hirt [e-mail] No No Yes
47 Attendee Greg Flory [e-mail] No No Yes
48 Attendee Kristine Williams [e-mail] No No Yes
49 Attendee Peter Kamensky [e-mail] No No Yes
50 Attendee Craig Bromby [e-mail] No No Yes
51 Attendee James West [e-mail] No No Yes
52 Attendee Julie Grzyb [e-mail] No No Yes
53 Attendee Derek Denard [e-mail] No No Yes
54 Attendee james brown [e-mail] No No Yes
55 Attendee connie brower [e-mail] No No Yes
56 Attendee Sarah Laughlin [e-mail] No No Yes

A67
12/16/2020
1
Department of Environmental Quality
City of Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne WWTP
Proposed Special Order by Consent (SOC) Public Hearing
December 9, 2020
2
Aerial Map of the Region
Department of Environmental Quality
1
2
A68
12/16/2020
2
What is 1,4-dioxane?
According to the 2017 EPA fact sheet, 1,4-dioxane is:
•A synthetic industrial chemical that is completely dissolves in water
•A by-product present in paint stripper, dye, grease, antifreeze, deicer, and even consumer and personal
care products such as deodorants, shampoos, and cosmetics
•Highly mobile and does not readily biodegrade in the environment
•Identifiable in reportable concentrations in groundwater and surface water, especially downstream of
urban areas
EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as a likely human carcinogen, but no federal maximum contaminant level (MCL)
has been established for it in drinking water.
3
1,4-dioxane in drinking water
How 1,4-dioxane enters surface water and drinking water:
•1,4-dioxane enters a WWTP from industrial and domestic wastewater
•Most WWTPs are not currently designed to remove 1,4-dioxane, so it passes through the WWTP and
enters surface waters with the effluent discharge
•Most drinking water treatment processes are unable to remove 1,4-dioxane from surface waters
EPA’s response to 1,4-dioxane:
•EPA issued a health advisory recommending concentrations not exceed 35 µg/L in drinking water to
protect for a 1 in 10,000 estimated lifetime cancer risk
•EPA risk assessments indicate that a drinking water concentration of 0.35 µg/L represents a 1 in
1,000,000 cancer risk level
4
3
4
A69
12/16/2020
3
US EPA
NC DEQ
Municipalities
Industries (SIUs)
Pretreatment Program Delegation
5
Department of Environmental Quality
City of Greensboro’s History
•From 2013 to 2015, results of monitoring by public water supply systems in North Carolina indicated the
presence of 1,4-dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin.
•Results of follow up DEQ studies noted detectable concentrations downstream of the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP's discharge.
•In 2015, the City voluntarily started a 1,4-dioxane source identification and reduction plan.
•By October 2015, the City identified one industry as a quantifiable source of 1,4-dioxane to the WWTP.
•The industry voluntarily agreed to conduct its own source reduction plan.
•Since 2016, the discharge of 1,4-dioxane from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP has reduced by over 50%.
6
5
6
A70
12/16/2020
4
DEQ’s Response
•December 2017: DEQ required the City to begin monthly monitoring of the effluent from the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP for 1,4-dioxane
•Results routinely indicated the presence of 1,4-dioxane
•August 2019: an effluent concentration of 957.5 µg/L was reported on their monthly monitoring report
•DEQ calculations predicted 1,4-dioxane effluent concentrations of that magnitude could cause the instream concentration downstream to exceed the 35 µg/L EPA health advisory level for drinking water
•October 2019: DEQ began its own sampling of 1,4-dioxane in the T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent
•DEQ sampling results indicate that the T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharge contributes to exceedances
downstream
•November 2019: DEQ issued a Notice of Violation to the City for the elevated discharge of 1,4-dioxane from
August 2019
7
What is an SOC?
A Special Order by Consent (SOC):
•May be an appropriate course of action if a facility is unable to consistently comply with the
terms, conditions, or limitations in an NPDES Permit
•A negotiated agreement between a permittee and the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC)
•A tool used to help facilities achieve compliance
•Temporarily relaxes parameter limits to allow time for a facility to make necessary
improvements or changes
8
7
8
A71
12/16/2020
5
Why does Greensboro need an SOC?
T.Z. Osborne WWTP is permitted by DEQ to discharge treated wastewater to South Buffalo Creek, which is in
the Cape Fear River Basin.
•The discharge permit does not currently contain limits for 1,4-dioxane.
The primary goal of the SOC is to reduce 1,4-dioxane concentrations from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP discharge
such that concentrations in downstream drinking water supplies will not exceed the EPA health advisory concentration of 35 µg/L.
•It is not intended to resolve, be applicable to, or encompass all other point and non-point sources that may be causing or contributing to elevated levels of 1,4-dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin.
•Source reduction will be the primary and most effective means of reducing 1,4-dioxane concentrations in the T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent and the Cape Fear River Basin.
9
What other future actions can be taken?
Significant future reductions of 1,4-dioxane will require technological advances to remove the compound at industries and WWTPs.
However, large scale treatment technologies for the removal of 1,4-dioxane at municipal WWTPs
does not currently exist.
10
9
10
A72
12/16/2020
6
Actions to be Undertaken in the Proposed SOC for the T.Z. Osborne WWTP
11
Department of Environmental Quality
SOC Year One
•Upon the execution date of the SOC, meet the effluent Year One daily maximum grab sample SOC
compliance value of 50 µg/l (“Year One SOC Compliance value”) to protect downstream drinking water intakes
•Increase 1,4-dioxane effluent monitoring frequency to weekly
•Develop and implement an ongoing 1,4-dioxane public education outreach plan with applicability toward
individual, commercial and industrial users of City Water Resources Department services
•Contact, interview, and survey indirect dischargers with identifiable, contributing, 1,4-dioxane concentrations
of greater than 100 µg/l
•Modify SIU permits or develop other pretreatment program mechanisms as necessary
12
Department of Environmental Quality
11
12
A73
12/16/2020
7
SOC Year One (cont.)
•Require analyses of all new industrial flows to the collection system for the presence of 1,4-dioxane prior to
the City’s acceptance of the wastewater. The City may require the same or similar analyses of new
commercial flows.
•The City shall also obtain a description of the character of any new discharge, its estimated volume, and its location
within the collection system.
•Continue collaboration and oversight regarding industrial dischargers of 1,4-dioxane to the WWTP:
•Identify SIUs that are indirect sources of 1,4-dioxane
•Develop a source reduction program
•Review slug control plans and update if necessary
•Increase inspection of selected SIUs to twice per year
13
Department of Environmental Quality
SOC Year One (cont.)
Provide DEQ a copy of the City’s existing 1,4-dioxane monitoring plan, and implement the following:
•Determine contributions to the collection system and investigate further as concentrations or loadings warrant
•Investigate and determine background levels of 1,4-dioxane that shall include the following:
•Industrial, domestic, commercial, drinking water, and surface intake water contributions
•Meet with DEQ Winston-Salem Regional Office on a quarterly basis
•As circumstances warrant, review and modify the existing 1,4-dioxane monitoring plan. Provide DEQ a copy
of proposed changes prior to their implementation.
14
Department of Environmental Quality
13
14
A74
12/16/2020
8
SOC Year One (cont.)
Report by telephone within 24 hours to the Winston-Salem Regional Office after receiving any data indicating a
T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent 1,4-dioxane concentration ≥ 50 µg/l.
•The City is also required to submit a written report on any finalized data regarding the exceedance, its
cause, effects, and its duration to the WSRO within 5 business days of the City’s first knowledge of the
exceedance.
15
Department of Environmental Quality
SOC Year One (cont.)
In addition to any other reporting required, the City shall submit a written report on the Year One activities. The
report must contain the following (at a minimum):
•Summary of the City’s investigation results
•Summary of any potential (new) industrial or commercial flows to the collection system
•Any oversight activities
•Public education outreach plan
•A table of all monitoring results for 1,4-dioxane collected during the SOC Year One
•In the case of noncompliance with the Year One SOC compliance value, a statement of the reason(s) for
noncompliance, remedial action(s) taken, and a statement on the extent to which subsequent dates or times for accomplishment of listed activities may be affected.
•Based on Year One data and any follow-up monitoring activities, including IU inspections and oversight and the City’s split sample data, determine the following and provide a summary:
•Long-term achievable effectiveness of source reduction efforts and resulting T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent reductions
•Industrial, domestic, commercial, surface, and drinking water contributions
16
Department of Environmental Quality
15
16
A75
12/16/2020
9
SOC Year Two
•Upon the first day of SOC Year Two, meet the effluent Year Two daily maximum grab sample SOC
compliance value of 35 µg/l (“Year Two SOC Compliance value”) to protect of downstream drinking water
intakes
•Continue weekly 1,4-dioxane effluent monitoring frequency
•Continue investigating industrial sources and engage with sources not defined as SIUs to reduce or eliminate
1,4-dioxane discharges
•Calculate a T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent 1,4-dioxane mass balance using all data (industrial, domestic,
commercial, drinking water, and collection system data)
•Modify SIU permits or develop other pretreatment program mechanisms as necessary
17
Department of Environmental Quality
SOC Year Two (cont.)
Report by telephone within 24 hours to the Winston-Salem Regional Office after receiving any data indicating a
T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent 1,4-dioxane concentration ≥ 35 µg/l.
•The City is also required to submit a written report on any finalized data regarding the exceedance, its
cause, effects, and its duration within 5 business days of the City’s first knowledge of the exceedance.
18
Department of Environmental Quality
17
18
A76
12/16/2020
10
SOC Year Two (cont.)
In addition to any other reporting required by DEQ, the City shall submit to DEQ a written report on the Year
Two activities. The report must contain the following (at a minimum):
•Summary of the City’s oversight activities
•Public education outreach plan
•1,4-dioxane mass balance
•A table of all monitoring results for 1,4-dioxane collected during the SOC Year Two
•In the case of noncompliance with the Year Two SOC compliance value, a statement of the reason(s) for
noncompliance, remedial action(s) taken, and a statement on the extent to which subsequent dates or times
for accomplishment of listed activities may be affected.
19
Department of Environmental Quality
Additional Requirements
Develop a Best Management Practices/1,4-dioxane Minimization Plan
In the case source reduction alone may not lead to the effluent SOC compliance value being consistently achieved, the following shall apply:
•If ≥ 25% of discharge data exceed the Year One SOC compliance value (50 µg/L), the City shall submit to DEQ for approval a report that considers how the City will address 1,4-dioxane in the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP effluent through:
1) Investigation of alternate/additional treatment processes for removal of 1,4-dioxane at major
industrial sources.
2) Investigation of the technical and economic feasibility of treatment technologies for the removal of
1,4-dioxane at wastewater treatment plants.
3) Investigation of the technical and economic feasibility of treatment technologies for removal of
1,4-dioxane at drinking water treatment facilities.
20
19
20
A77
12/16/2020
11
SOC Stipulated Penalties
•The City of Greensboro agrees to pay an upfront penalty in the amount of $5,000.00 as settlement of the
alleged violations
•The City agrees that unless excused, the City will pay stipulated penalties according to the following schedule for failure to meet the deadlines and requirements:
21
Department of Environmental Quality
Description Stipulated Penalty
Failure to provide 24-hour notice of elevated discharge levels to
WSRO in the Compliance Schedule in Section 2. of this Special
Order
$1,000 per event; $100/day thereafter
Failure to submit complete Annual Reports in the Compliance
Schedule in Section 2. of this Special Order by specified date $1,000 per event; $100/day thereafter
Failure to meet the grab sample effluent daily maximum SOC
compliance value in SOC Year One or Year Two
Exceedance 1-5 per SOC year: $1,000 per event, per SOC year
Exceedance 6-10 per SOC year: $2,000 per event, per SOC year
Exceedance 11 and up per SOC year: $3,000 per event, per SOC year
Failure to achieve any other requirement of this Special Order $1,000 per event
T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC Timeline
•Initial SOC draft Public Notice: June 22, 2020 – July 24, 2020
•Based on comments received during the initial public notice, DEQ made changes to the proposed SOC and
the City of Greensboro accepted them, which included adjustment of the SOC Year One compliance value,
language clarifications, and the addition of an FAQ document to answer questions received during the initial
public notice.
•Updated SOC and Public Hearing Public Notices: November 6, 2020 – December 9, 2020
•Written comments due by noon (12pm) on December 14, 2020
•Today's public hearing is the result of the high level of interest in the proposed SOC and allows DEQ
additional opportunity to receive public comments.
22
Department of Environmental Quality
21
22
A78
12/16/2020
12
Public Comments May Be Provided By:
23
•Public Hearing
•Email: [e-mail] (Please type “T.Z. Osborne
WWTP SOC” in the subject line)
•Voicemail: 336-776-9691 (Please state name and any affiliation
before stating comments)
•USPS: NC Division of Water Resources, Water Quality Permitting
Section (Attn: Brianna Young), 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,
NC 27699-1617
Department of Environmental Quality
23
A79
1
Young, Brianna A
From:Therese Vick <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 10:54 AM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc:Debbie Hall; Keely Wood
Subject:[External] T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

To Whom it May Concern:

Having read over the "Special Order by Consent" (SOC) I do not see any mechanism that will ensure that
downstream users will be notified by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) should any spikes be seen in
reporting or a discharge occur. This has been a continuing problem with this facility; the City of Greensboro has
attempted to bury pertinent information that could be discovered in public records, and DEQ failed to notify
downstream water systems. DEQ should include provisions in the SOC requiring that the public and downstream
water users/systems be notified of any problems immediately. Please see BREDL comments submitted in
September 2019 below.

Sincerely,

Therese Vick

September 16, 2020

Hello,

On behalf of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) and our Chatham and Lee County chapters I request
that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality hold a public meeting and extend the comment
deadline on the proposed Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the TZ Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant. BREDL
has members in Chatham and Lee counties that drink water from the Cape Fear River.

The history of this and other facilities that discharge into the Cape Fear does not indicate that transparency is
paramount; and apparently, transparency is a problem for local government. From City of Greensboro emails
obtained by NC Policy Watch: "The report will be public record eventually”
Her boss: “It’s OK buried in the report. Just don’t want it to stick out like a sore thumb”
Please see:
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2020/07/22/pw-special-report-while-toxic-chemical-polluted-cape-fear-river-basin-
some-utilities-officials-dismissed-public-health-risk/
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2020/07/23/pw-special-report-part-two-lax-local-regulation-allows-toxic-
carcinogen-to-infiltrate-drinking-water-across-the-cape-fear-river-basin/

And: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2020/07/23/pw-special-report-part-two-lax-local-regulation-allows-toxic-
carcinogen-to-infiltrate-drinking-water-across-the-cape-fear-river-basin/

A80
2
Downstream communities deserve protection, and this SOC is not protective. It is incumbent on the DEQ to review
the past practices of this and other facilities responsible for discharging 1,4 dioxane into the Cape Fear River-
including any and all attempts to cover-up, bury and hide public information.

Therese Vick

Do not share this email unless you have my express permission to do so

Therese Vick
North Carolina Healthy Sustainable Communities/Coal Ash Campaign Coordinator
Research Director
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
[e-mail]
The Office of Imminent Disaster
919-345-3673
www.bredl.org
@tvickBREDL Twitter

Be kind to all you meet, each of us carries a burden that others cannot see—

A81
1
Young, Brianna A
From:Jeannie Ambrose <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 11:40 AM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC-Public Comment-JA
Attachments:2020-DEC 14-DEQ Public Comment-Greensboro T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC-FINAL-
JA submitted .pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments.

Jeannie Ambrose
A82
DEQ
 Public
 Comment

Greensboro
 T.Z.
 Osborne
 WWTP
 Special
 Order
 by
 Consent

December
 14,
 2020

I
 understand
 that
 the
 intent
 of
 the
 proposed,
 revised
 Greensboro
 T.Z.
 Osborne
 WWTP
 Special
 Order

by
 Consent
 is
 not
 to
 resolve
 but
 reduce
 the
 concentration
 of
 1,4-­‐dioxane-­‐contaminated
 effluent

discharged
 in
 the
 Cape
 Fear
 River
 Basin.
 Living
 downstream,
 I
 am
 aware
 of
 the
 many
 man-­‐made
 and

naturally
 occurring
 chemicals
 affecting
 the
 drinking
 water
 quality
 threatening
 human
 and

environmental
 health.
 The
 ongoing
 drinking
 water
 quality
 issues
 in
 Pittsboro
 is
 one
 specific
 case
 that

shows
 how
 difficult
 it
 is
 for
 a
 community
 to
 find
 another
 drinking
 water
 source
 less
 contaminated
 or

the
 resources
 to
 upgrade
 or
 build
 a
 new
 WWTP
 capable
 of
 treating/reducing
 the
 level
 of
 these

contaminates
 of
 emerging
 concern.

For
 these
 reasons,
 I
 support
 the
 following
 recommendations
 to
 further
 protect
 our
 natural
 resources

and
 reduce
 risks
 to
 environmental
 and
 human
 health:

1.
 The
 Significant
 Industrial
 Users
 upstream
 that
 are
 the
 source
 of
 chemical
 contaminates
 must
 be

identified
 and
 held
 responsible
 for
 treating
 their
 waste
 stream.

2.
 Permit
 target
 levels
 of
 1,4-­‐Dioxane
 in
 the
 effluent
 from
 the
 T.Z.
 Osborne
 WWTP
 should
 be
 no

higher
 than
 35μg/L
 in
 the
 first
 year
 and
 no
 higher
 than
 1.0
 μg/L
 [lowest
 level
 measurable]
 in
 the

second
 year.
 Sampling
 data
 should
 be
 made
 available
 to
 the
 public.

3.
 The
 public
 should
 be
 informed
 of
 the
 treatment
 methods
 [e.g.,
 slug
 control
 plan]
 used,
 along
 with

any
 violations
 and
 the
 compliance
 results
 in
 the
 Annual
 Sewage
 and
 Water
 Reclamation
 Report.
Thank
 you
 for
 revising
 the
 Greensboro
 T.Z.
 Osborne
 WWTP
 SOC
 in
 response
 to
 public
 input
 and

providing
 the
 opportunity
 to
 submit
 public
 comments
 on
 this
 version
 of
 the
 SOC
 for
 consideration.

Jeannie
 Ambrose

Pittsboro,
 NC

A83
1
Young, Brianna A
From:Emily Sutton <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 4:53 PM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC comments
Attachments:Greensboro Talking points SOC.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Ms. Young,
Please see attached comments.
Thank you.

Emily Sutton
Haw Riverkeeper

Haw River Assembly
P.O.Box 187
Bynum NC 27228
O: [phone]
C: [phone]
www.hawriver.org
A84

Greensboro Special Order by Consent

On November 14, 2019, DEQ issued a Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess Civil Penalties
against the City of Greensboro for a discharge of 1,4-dioxane of 957.5 µg/L that occurred on August 7,
2019. This was due to a discharge from a Significant Industrial User, Shamrock Environmental, a
company that treats industrial waste.
Following much public engagement on the initial Special Order by Consent, the NC Department
of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) has released a second draft of the Special Order by Consent to
public comment.
Three changes have been made:
1.The compliance value in Year One has been reduced to 50 ug/L.
2.The word “voluntary” has been removed in record to source reduction in year one
3.Clarification has been made that states compliance values take effect on the first day of
each year.

In addition to those changes, we request NCDEQ make the following adjustments.

●The Environmental Protection Agency has set an advisory level based on a 1 in 10,000
cancer rate of 35 ug/L for 1,4 dioxane discharges. The narrative set by NCDEQ in the
Standard for Toxic Substances (​15A NCAC 02B .0208 STANDARDS FOR TOXIC
SUBSTANCES AND TEMPERATURE​) states that known carcinogens must not exceed
a 1 in 1,000,000 cancer rate. This narrative standard sets the limit of 1,4 dioxane
discharge to 0.35 ug/L. However, this standard is not being enforced.
●Due to limitations in technology, the practical quantitation limit (the lowest level the
approved method can detect) is 1.0 ug/L. This practical quantitation limit should be the
compliance value for year two in order to adequately protect downstream communities.
The agency acknowledges that there are background levels present in the river system,
and achieving the in-stream target value of 0.35 ug/L in water supply watersheds will
prove to be a challenge due to those levels. Additional inputs from direct dischargers
should be minimized to the Practical Quantitation Limit of 1.0ug/L.
●The Special Order by Consent states that T.Z. Osborne will be conducting weekly
sampling, which we are encouraged by. Source removal is a priority, and will prove to be
the most effective way to minimize industrial pollutants from reaching surface waters.
However, this data should be publicly available and shared with downstream
communities.
A85
●The Special Order by Consent also references a “slug control plan” which has not been
made public. These slugs of high levels of concentrated toxins must be more adequately
monitored and prevented.
●In addition to transparency for the public in regards to monitoring data and a slug control
plan, plans for developing a source reduction plan should also be shared publicly as a
resource for education and outreach to industrial users throughout the state. If properly
managed and enforced, this could be a proactive step to limiting 1,4-dioxane discharges
beyond Greensboro’s wastewater treatment plant.
●Under the current plan, indirect dischargers will only be included in additional
interviewing and surveys if the contribution exceeds 100ug/L. It is unclear how often
these dischargers will be monitored. If the goal is to minimize source reduction rather
than treatment at the water treatment plant, no discharger should exceed the yearly
compliance value, which should be no greater than 35 ug/L in Year One and no greater
than the PQL of 1.0 ug/L in Year Two.
●Under the current plan, Significant Industrial Users are monitored only twice per year.
This is inadequate and will not allow proper “slug control” or enforcement of limitations.
●The agency has given Greensboro little guidance on setting a numeric value for a 1,4
dioxane mass balance. Understanding that the data collected will inform this balance, we
recommend that the agency provide clear direction if that balance exceeds the PQL of
1.0ug/L in Year Two.

Thank you,
Emily Sutton
Haw Riverkeeper
Haw River Assembly
[e-mail]

A86
1
Young, Brianna A
From:Geoff Gisler <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 11:15 AM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc:Jean Zhuang; Kelly Moser; [e-mail]; Dana Sargent ([e-mail]);
[e-mail]; Kerri Allen; 'Grady McCallie'
Subject:[External] T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC comments
Attachments:2020-12-14 _Comments on Revised SOC TZ Osborne.PDF; 2020_07_24 - SELC
Comments on T.Z. Osborne WWTP Special Order by Consent.PDF
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Dear Ms. Young:
Please accept the attached comments on the Proposed Special Order by Consent for the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP. These comments are submitted on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Haw River Assembly, the
North Carolina Coastal Federation, and the North Carolina Conservation Network. Sincerely,
Geoff

Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney|Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
T: 919-967-1450 | F: 919-929-9421

This electronic message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client,
work product or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for
delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient(s), and/or you have received this
communication in error, then any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or other
distribution of this email message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and
permanently delete the original message.

A87
1

December 14, 2020

Via Email
N.C. Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
Attn: Brianna Young
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
[e-mail]

Re: Proposed Special Order by Consent: City of Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne
Wastewater Treatment Plant

Dear Ms. Young:

Please accept these comments on the revised Special Order by Consent for the City of
Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne wastewater treatment plant (“Order”). The Southern Environmental
Law Center submits these comments on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Haw River Assembly,
the North Carolina Coastal Federation, and the North Carolina Conservation Network.
Unfortunately the Order fails to address the issues included in our July 24, 2020 letter on the
original order, which we attach and incorporate by reference, and allows Greensboro to
discharge 50 ug/l of 1,4 dioxane in year 1 and 35 ug/l in year 2 and beyond. As a result, the Haw
River and drinking water for communities downstream will continue to be contaminated by
Greensboro’s pollution. The Division and Greensboro have known about dangerous levels of 1,4
dioxane being discharged from the T.Z. Osborne facility since at least 2015, yet the Order
continues a largely voluntary approach to this critical problem and abandons any effort to
comply with applicable water quality standards. Therefore, the Order should be withdrawn.

North Carolinians in Pittsboro, Fayetteville, and Wilmington should not be forced to
drink water with 1,4 dioxane at levels that are likely to cause cancer. As the Division recognizes
in its Frequently Asked Questions document that accompanied the Order, state law prohibits
Greensboro from discharging 1,4 dioxane at the levels allowed under the Order—even upon
completion of all required elements. In the FAQ document, the Division acknowledges that the
water quality standard for 1,4 dioxane for water supply waters is 0.35 ug/l.1 The agency states
that this is the threshold “for acceptable risks based on best available data.”2 The Order does not,
however, require Greensboro to reduce 1,4 dioxane discharges to a level that will meet that
standard or result in “acceptable risks.” It would, instead, allow Greensboro to discharge 1,4
dioxane up to 100 times the acceptable risk level. Therefore, the Order presents—based on the
1 Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Frequently Asked Questions:
Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the City of Greensboro T.X. Osborne WWTP at 2 (“FAQ”); see also 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 02B.0208 (dictating toxic substances standard implementation).
2 FAQ at 2.
A88
2
agency’s own analysis—an unacceptable risk, does not provide a pathway to compliance for the
City, and cannot be issued under state rules.

The remainder of the revised order would require Greensboro to survey its industrial
users and to identify the sources of 1,4 dioxane that contribute to the T.Z. Osborne facility’s
Clean Water Act violations. The problem, however, is that each of the requirements is already
mandated by federal law. That law requires Greensboro to, among many other things:

 “Deny or condition new or increased contributions of pollutants . . . by Industrial users
where such contributions . . . would cause the POTW to violate its NPDES permit;”3
 “Require compliance with applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements by
Industrial Users;”4
 “Control . . . the contribution to the POTW by each Industrial User;”5
 “Require (A) the development of a compliance schedule by each Industrial User for the
installation of technology required to meet applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements and (B) the submission of all notices and self-monitoring reports from
Industrial Users as are necessary to assess and assure compliance by Industrial Users;”6
 “Carry out all inspection surveillance and monitoring procedures necessary to determine,
independent of information supplied by Industrial Users, compliance or noncompliance
with applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements by Industrial Users;”7
 “Obtain remedies for noncompliance by any Industrial User with any Pretreatment
Standard and Requirement;”8
 “Identify the character and volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW by the
Industrial Users;”9 and
 “[I]mmediately and effectively to halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the
[publicly owned treatment works] which reasonably appears to present an imminent
endangerment to the health or welfare of persons.”10

The revised order is both less stringent and less comprehensive than the existing requirements. If
DEQ actually wants to protect downstream users, the agency should enforce existing
pretreatment program regulations.

The Order is also contrary to the rules for special orders by consent. The only purpose of
a special order by consent is to “establish[] a schedule of corrective actions necessary to achieve
compliance” with state laws implementing the Clean Water Act, including relevant water quality
standards.11 An application for a special order by consent must propose “the permit limits that
the facility can be expected to meet if operated at its maximum efficiency during the term of the

3 40 C.F.R. §403.8(f)(1)(i). 4 Id. at §403.8(f)(1)(ii).
5 Id. at §403.8(f)(1)(iii). 6 Id. at §403.8(f)(1)(iv).
7 Id. at §403.8(f)(1)(v). 8 Id. at §403.8(f)(1)(vi). 9 Id. at §403.8(f)(2)(ii). 10 Id.
11 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02H.1206(a)(1).
A89
3
SOC.”12 In other words, the limits imposed must be based on the best performance that facility
can attain. The permit application must provide “a predicted schedule for activities necessary to
achieve permit compliance.”13 The order itself must “ensure that the applicant makes continued
progress toward achieving compliance with its permit requirements.”14

The Order, contrary to the rules, makes no effort to hold Greensboro to the best it can do
to remove 1,4 dioxane or to achieve compliance with state water quality standards. By allowing
Greensboro to discharge 35 ug/l in perpetuity, the Division has abandoned the requirement that
Greensboro must perform at its “maximum efficiency” during the period covered by the Order
and, by the end of the SOC, comply with water quality standards. The rules do not allow the
Division to do so.

Many of the issues the Division must resolve elsewhere are complicated. This is not one
of those issues. The law is clear, Greensboro is required to prevent industrial users from
contaminating its discharge with 1,4 dioxane because it is not authorized to discharge the
chemical. The City has had five years to identify those industrial users and require their
compliance. The pretreatment program clearly gives the City the authority, mandate, and tools to
achieve compliance.

The water quality standard is equally clear. The Division has recognized that the
applicable water quality standard is 0.35 ug/l.

Most importantly, the consequences of Greensboro’s failure to properly manage its
pretreatment program and DEQ’s failure to enforce controlling law are clear: communities from
Pittsboro to Wilmington will continue to drink water with toxic levels of 1,4 dioxane. Those
same communities are burdened by high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. DEQ has
the authority and obligation to relieve this burden by enforcing the existing law and holding
Greensboro and its industrial users responsible for their pollution.

We respectfully request that DEQ withdraw the proposed special order by consent and
enforce the existing law to its fullest extent.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey R. Gisler
Senior Attorney

Attachment

12 Id. at 02H.1206(a)(2)(F)(iv). 13 Id. at 02H.1206(a)(2)(G).
14 Id. at 02H.1206(b)(1).
A90
1

July 24, 2020

VIA E-MAIL
Ms. Brianna Young
N.C. Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699
[e-mail]

Re: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on T.Z. Osborne WWTP
Special Order by Consent

Dear Ms. Young:

The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments on the draft
Special Order by Consent (“agreement”) proposed by the City of Greensboro (“Greensboro” or
“the City”) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) for
wastewater discharges from the City’s T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant. These
comments are submitted on behalf of Haw River Assembly, Cape Fear River Watch, North
Carolina Conservation Network, Center for Environmental Heath, North Carolina Coastal
Federation, and the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant (“T.Z. Osborne” or “treatment
plant”) treats wastewater from industrial facilities in Greensboro and parts of Guilford County,
North Carolina. Some of these industries use or produce 1,4-dioxane in their processes and send
wastewater containing the chemical to T.Z. Osborne. Because the City’s treatment plant has not
been removing 1,4-dioxane as part of its wastewater treatment process, it discharges the
chemical into the Cape Fear River Basin. And because drinking water utilities cannot remove
1,4-dioxane with conventional treatment, downstream communities are forced to drink water
contaminated by Greensboro’s pollution.

Since at least 2015, Greensboro and DEQ have known that the City has been
contaminating downstream drinking water supplies with 1,4-dioxane pollution. Yet the
discharges continue at concentrations that threaten human health. Under the agreement, DEQ
would allow Greensboro to continue to taint the drinking water of downstream communities for
years to come.

Instead, DEQ must use its authority under the Clean Water Act to impose strict limits in
the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for 1,4-dioxane.
As required by the Clean Water Act, Greensboro would in turn properly regulate its industries
and stop them from releasing 1,4-dioxane into the City’s treatment system. Only then can
Greensboro and DEQ protect the health and safety of those downstream.

A91
2
I. The public cannot wait for Greensboro to stop its toxic discharges of
1,4-dioxane.
Greensboro’s discharges of 1,4-dioxane have been going on for years, if not decades.
The public should not have to wait any longer for meaningful action. Voluntary actions taken by
industry are not sufficient when, as a result, downstream communities must involuntarily drink
contaminated water.
A. 1,4-dioxane is toxic.
1,4-dioxane is a man-made chemical that is a byproduct of many industrial processes.1
The chemical is toxic to humans,2 causing liver and kidney damage.3 EPA itself classifies it as
“likely to be carcinogenic,”4 and California lists it as known to cause cancer.5 Not only is 1,4-
dioxane toxic, but it does not degrade and moves quickly through the environment.6 Because of
the harms 1,4-dioxane causes, EPA established a drinking water health advisory with an
associated estimated lifetime cancer risk of one in a million at a concentration of 0.35
micrograms per liter (“µg/L”).7 The health advisory is set at the level at which there would be no
more than one case of cancer per one million people exposed (“one-in-a-million cancer level”).
DEQ has similarly established a human health criterion of 0.35 µg/L for 1,4-dioxane in water
supplies.8
B. Greensboro and DEQ have known about Greensboro’s 1,4-dioxane pollution
since at least 2015.
Greensboro and DEQ have known about the City’s pollution for years. Data collected
under EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 from 2013 to 2015 showed that North
Carolina’s Cape Fear River Basin had some of the highest levels of 1,4-dioxane in drinking
water in the country, including downstream of Greensboro.9 Researchers at N.C. State
University also alerted DEQ to 1,4-dioxane pollution in the Haw River downstream of
Greensboro.10 Around that time, DEQ’s own sampling further revealed “hot spots” of the

1 Technical Fact Sheet – 1,4-Dioxane, EPA 1-2 (2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
03/documents/ffrro_factsheet_contaminant_14-dioxane_january2014_final.pdf (“EPA, Technical Fact Sheet – 1,4-
Dioxane”); Detlef Knappe, 1,4-Dioxane Occurrence in the Haw River and in Pittsboro Drinking Water, N.C. STATE
UNIV. (Sept. 23, 2019) (“Knappe 2019 Presentation”). 2 EPA, Technical Fact Sheet – 1,4-Dioxane, supra note 1, at 1. 3 Id.; EPA, Integrated Risk Information System, Chemical Assessment Summary: 1,4,-dioxane at 2,
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0326_summary.pdf (last visited on July 10, 2020). 4 EPA, Technical Fact Sheet – 1,4-Dioxane, supra note 1, at 1. 5 1,4-Dioxane, CAL. WATER BOARDS (June 26, 2019),
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/14-Dioxane.html.
6 EPA, Technical Fact Sheet – 1,4-Dioxane, supra note 1, at 1-2. 7 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, EPA OFFICE OF WATER 4 (2018),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/dwtable2018.pdf.
8 NC_StdsTable_09222017, N.C. DEPT. ENVTL. QUALITY (2017), https://deq.nc.gov/nc-stdstable-09222017. 9 Occurrence Data for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, EPA,
https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule (last visited July 10, 2020). 10 Rebecca Sadosky, NC 1,4-Dioxane Study: A SDWA/CWA Collaboration, N.C. DEPT. ENVTL. QUALITY 12 (June 5,
2018) (“Sadosky Presentation”).
A92
3
chemical downstream of the City.11 DEQ’s stream monitoring data, collected from 2014 through
2016, found concentrations as high as 543 µg/L downstream of Greensboro’s treatment plant—
far higher than the average concentration of 1.8 µg/L measured immediately upstream of the
plant.12
As a result of the data, Greensboro was identified as a major source of 1,4-dioxane
contamination. The City in turn began investigating the cause of its pollution in 2015, including
the industries that were releasing the chemical into Greensboro’s sewer system.13
Starting in December 2017, DEQ also required Greensboro to monitor T. Z. Osborne’s
effluent for 1,4-dioxane.14 The results of these monitoring activities regularly showed the
presence of the chemical at concentrations many times higher than its one-in-a-million cancer
level.15
C. Despite five years of study, the contamination continues.
The years of voluntary collaboration between DEQ and Greensboro to reduce 1,4-
dioxane in the City’s treatment plant has not removed the threat of the chemical. As recently as
August 2019, Greensboro’s wastewater discharges into the Cape Fear River Basin contained 1,4-
dioxane levels of 957.5 µg/L.16 This caused a severe increase of 1,4-dioxane in Pittsboro’s
finished drinking water to concentrations of 114 µg/L—325 times higher than EPA’s health
advisory.17 No one told the people in Pittsboro about the contamination at the time. By the time
Greensboro reported the discharge to DEQ on September 27, 2019,18 the polluted water had
passed through Pittsboro’s drinking water system and into people’s homes. DEQ acknowledged
the threat that Greensboro’s discharges posed to human health by issuing a notice of violation,
stating that the City violated state rules requiring that waste “shall not render the waters injurious
to public health . . . .”19

11 1,4-Dioxane and Bromide Monitoring Plan, N.C. DEPT. ENVTL. QUALITY 1 (Mar. 28, 2017),
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/Dioxane/BromideDioxaneSamplingPlan20
170328.pdf . 12 Sadosky Presentation, supra note 10, at 25; 1,4-Dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North
Carolina, NC DEPT. ENVTL. QUALITY 11 (Feb. 22, 2017),
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/Dioxane/DioxaneYear2ReportWithMemo
_20170222.pdf. 13 N.C. Dept. of Envtl. Qual., Draft Special Order by Consent at 2 (“SOC”), included as Attachment 1. 14 Id. 15 See May 2018 T.Z. Osborne Discharge Monitoring Report – Permit No. NC0047384 (“May 2018 DMR”)
(reporting a monthly average concentration of 331.833 µg/L); August 2018 T.Z. Osborne Discharge Monitoring
Report – Permit No. NC0047384 (“August 2018 DMR”) (reporting a monthly average concentration of 408 µg/L);
March 2019 T.Z. Osborne Discharge Monitoring Report – Permit No. NC0047384 (“March 2019 DMR”) (reporting
a monthly average concentration of 24.2 µg/L). These reports are included as Attachment 2. 16 N.C. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, Notice of Violation & Intent to Assess Civil Penalties, NOV-2019-PC-0728 (Nov.
6, 2019) (“NOV”), included as Attachment 3. 17 Knappe 2019 Presentation, supra note 1; HAW RIVER ASSEMBLY, How Safe is Pittsboro’s Drinking Water?,
http://hawriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/How-Safe-is-Your-Drinking-Water.pdf (last visited July 10, 2020). 18 Press Release, N.C. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, DEQ Investigating 1,4 Dioxane Release (Oct. 15, 2019),
https://deq.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2019/10/15/deq-investigating-14-dioxane-release (last visited July 20, 2020). 19 NOV, supra note 16, at 1 (stating that the City violated North Carolina regulation 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02B
.0211(12)).
A93
4
Further downstream, Fayetteville and Wilmington have also had 1,4-dioxane in their
drinking water.20 Frustrated by DEQ’s delays in addressing 1,4-dioxane pollution, members of
the Fayetteville Public Works Commission have urged DEQ to take immediate action.21
The situation is even more urgent because Greensboro is not the only source of 1,4-
dioxane in the Cape Fear.22 Other municipalities also contribute to the pollution that flows into
downstream communities’ water supplies.23 As discussed below, the existence of multiple
sources emphasizes the need to control and eliminate Greensboro’s discharge.
II. The agreement between DEQ and Greensboro will not result in meaningful
reductions anytime soon.
The agreement between Greensboro and DEQ is wholly inadequate. Both the City and
DEQ have been investigating the City’s discharges for years—yet the agreement sets an
unenforceable, insufficient goal and does not require the City to take action to protect the
communities downstream.
Even though Greensboro has known about, and been investigating, its pollution since at
least 2015, the agreement gives the City more time to study its pollution. After the first year, the
City can comply with the agreement by showing through a daily maximum grab sample that the
1,4-dioxane in its discharge falls below 60 ug/L.24 Then after a second year, the City can comply
with the agreement by showing through a daily maximum grab sample that the 1,4-dioxane in its
discharge falls below 35 ug/L.25 Throughout this time, any violation of these sampling targets
results only in additional investigation into the City’s pollution and negligible penalties. These
requirements are insufficient for many reasons.
First, if the City fails to meet these targets, there are no real consequences. The City
would have to pay a small penalty, state the reasons for its noncompliance, and describe any
actions taken in response.26 Even if over a quarter of the City’s discharge data exceeds 60 ug/L
at the end of the first year, Greensboro would be allowed to delay any action once again by
20 Knappe 2019 Presentation, supra note 1. 21 Greg Barnes, Fayetteville water has rising amounts of probable carcinogen. Why aren’t regulators stopping it?,
THE FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER (Jun. 9, 2018), https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20180609/fayetteville-water-has-
rising-amounts-of--probable-carcinogen-why-arent-regulators-stopping-it. 22 Pittsboro and other downstream communities are also suffering from other industrial toxins, including per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). In the absence of action from regulators and upstream municipalities, affected
communities have been forced to find solutions themselves—including installing expensive filtration systems or
providing bottled water at schools. Greg Barnes, Duke to study PFAS health effects in Pittsboro residents, N.C.
HEALTH NEWS (July 29, 2019), https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2019/07/29/pfas-health-effects-in-
pittsboro-residents-studied/. 23 1,4-Dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Initial Screening and Source Identification
Study, N.C. DEPT. OF ENVTL. QUALITY 4 (Jan. 25, 2016),
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/ECO/DioxaneReport_Yr1Final-
20160127.pdf (“DEQ 2016 1,4-Dioxane Report”). 24 SOC at 4. 25 Id. at 6. 26 Id. at 5 (asking the City to make a “statement of the reason(s) for noncompliance, remedial action(s) taken, and a
statement on the extent to which subsequent dates or times for accomplishment of listed activities may be affected”);
Id. at 7–8 (providing for minimal penalties).
A94
5
further investigating its pollution problem.27 If the City cannot “consistently achieve[]” the
second year goal of 35 µ/L, then it need only “develop a Best Management Practices/1,4-dioxane
Minimization Plan.”28 There are no specific requirements for that plan—omitting any
requirement that Greensboro or its industries install treatment technology or implement other
pollution controls.
Moreover, the agreement’s sampling goals are not protective: 60 µg/L is over 170 times
higher than the one-in-a-million cancer level adopted in EPA’s health advisory for 1,4-dioxane.
The target applicable after the second year—35 µg/L—is still 100 times higher than the health
advisory level. Neither would protect the public even if Greensboro were the only source of 1,4-
dioxane in the river. Given the reality that other sources continue to contribute 1,4-dioxane to
the river, both goals are plainly insufficient. As discussed below in section III(D), they also
violate North Carolina’s water quality standards.
Finally, a grab sample is taken at one point in time. The City’s 1,4-dioxane discharges
have had spikes that, in turn, cause spikes of the chemical in drinking water downstream.29 The
grab samples required by the agreement would not capture those extreme events that have
endangered communities in the past.
This agreement between the City and Greensboro does nothing to protect the people
living in Pittsboro, Fayetteville and other communities that drink water from the Cape Fear
River. It continues to allow the City to delay action, elevating Greensboro’s interests over those
of downstream communities.
III. DEQ must issue a permit with strict 1,4-dioxane limits based on available
treatment technology and compliance with water quality standards.
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant without a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit.30 As conceded by the order,
Greensboro is discharging a pollutant from a point source without a NPDES permit authorizing
that discharge.31 The Clean Water Act does not allow DEQ to circumvent the permitting process
to allow pollution without conducting a proper permitting analysis.
As courts have stated, “[o]nly Congress may amend the [Clean Water Act] to create
exemptions from regulation[,]”32 and in the case of the Clean Water Act, “Congress intended the
NPDES permit to be the only means by which a discharger from a point source may escape the
total prohibition of [§] 301(a).”33 Accordingly, “[A State] has no authority to create a permit

27 Id. at 7 (asking the City to “submit a report that considers . . .1) Investigation of alternate/additional treatment
processes . . . at major industrial sources[;]2) Investigation of the . . . feasibility of treatment technology . . . at
wastewater treatment plants[; and] 3) Investigation of the . . . feasibility of treatment technologies . . . at drinking
water treatment facilities”) (emphasis added). 28 Id. at 6–7. 29 See infra Section I(C). 30 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a)(1). 31 SOC at 1 (“NPDES Permit NC0047384 does not currently contain discharge limitations for 1,4-dioxane.”). 32 N. Plains Res. Council v. Fid. Expl. & Dev. Co., 325 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Am. Mining
Congress v. E.P.A., 965 F.2d 759, 772 (9th Cir.1992)). 33 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
A95
6
exemption from the [Clean Water Act] for discharges that would otherwise be subject to the
NPDES permitting process.”34

Instead of relying on a voluntary agreement that does not include any enforceable limits
to regulate Greensboro’s discharge, DEQ must issue the City a NPDES permit under the Clean
Water Act. As discussed below, the permit must include strict limits on 1,4-dioxane based on
available treatment technology and compliance with water quality standards.

A. Greensboro’s discharge of 1,4-dioxane is an unpermitted discharge in violation of the
Clean Water Act.
The most recent NPDES permit for the T. Z. Osborne WWTP—NPDES Permit No.
NC0047384—was issued by DEQ in June 2014.35 Greensboro applied for renewal of this
NPDES permit in 2013.36 Greensboro’s application did not disclose its discharge of 1,4-
dioxane,37 nor did the permit issued by DEQ authorize the discharge of 1,4-dioxane.38
Therefore, Greensboro’s 1,4-dioxane discharges are unpermitted discharges in violation of the
Clean Water Act.

DEQ has acknowledged that disclosure of toxic pollutants, including 1,4-dioxane, is
required by the Clean Water Act and state water quality laws. The agency has stated that “the
permit applicant’s burden […] is to disclose […] the presence of known constituents in a
discharge that pose a potential risk to human health.”39 Without such disclosure, the
application’s permit would not “shield the permittee from liability,” since the discharged
pollutant would not be “within the ‘reasonable contemplation’ of the permitting agency when it
issued the permit due to nondisclosure by the permittee.”40 The EPA Environmental Appeals
Board’s decision in In re: Ketchikan Pulp Company further emphasized the importance of
disclosure,41 and this decision has been adopted by the Fourth Circuit. In Piney Run Pres. Ass’n
v. Cty. Comm’rs, the Fourth Circuit stated: “To the extent that a permit holder discharges a
pollutant that it did not disclose, it violates the NPDES permit and the [Clean Water Act].”42

Moreover, municipalities that own and operate wastewater treatment plants are
required to “fully and effectively exercise[] and implement[]” their authority to

34 N. Plains Res. Council, 325 F.3d at 1164; see also W. Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman, 651 F. Supp.
2d 512, 518 (S.D.W. Va. 2009). 35 NPDES Permit No. NC004784 for the T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant, N.C. DEPT. OF ENVTL. QUALITY
(June 6, 2014) [hereinafter “NPDES Permit No. NC004784”], included as Attachment 4. 36 Permit Renewal Application No. NC004784, N.C. DEPT. OF ENVTL. QUALITY (Nov. 26, 2018), included as
Attachment 5. 37 Id. 38 NPDES Permit No. NC004784, supra note 35. 39 Amended Complaint, N.C. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Chemours, 17 CVS 580, 6–7 (N.C. Super. 2018) (citing
33 U.S.C. § 1342(k), Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cty. Comm’rs, 268 F.3d 255, 265 (4th Cir. 2001)). 40 Id. 41 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998). 42 Piney Run, 268 F.3d. at 268.
A96
7
“[i]dentify the character and volume of pollutants contributed to the [publicly owned
treatment works]” by their industries.43

Because Greensboro did not disclose the presence of 1,4-dioxane in its NPDES
permit application, it does not have a NPDES permit authorizing it to discharge 1,4-
dioxane from these point sources into the Cape Fear River Basin. Therefore, Greensboro
has violated, and continues to violate, the Clean Water Act.

B. DEQ and Greensboro must exercise their authority to require industries to stop
discharging 1,4-dioxane.

Federal and state laws do not allow for mandatory pollution control requirements to be
supplanted by voluntary agreements. In particular, the Clean Water Act pretreatment program
mandates that DEQ and Greensboro use their authority under the Act to prevent industries from
releasing chemicals that cannot be removed by the City’s treatment plant, and that threaten
human health—it does not allow DEQ to rely on the “cooperative institutional resolve of all
affected parties”44 before the agency addresses toxic contamination in drinking water supplies.
The continued discharge of 1,4-dioxane from the City of Greensboro’s treatment plant after years
of voluntary action demonstrates why.
DEQ has stated that treatment technologies for 1,4-dioxane “are anticipated to be
prohibitively expensive for local governments and the citizens served by public utilities,” and
that the best way to stop 1,4-dioxane pollution is “reduction, elimination and/or capture and
treatment at industrial sources using or generating 1,4-dioxane.”45 The agreement between DEQ
and Greensboro similarly acknowledges that “source reduction will be the primary and most
effective means of reducing 1,4-dioxane concentrations . . . .”46 The Clean Water Act provides
how industrial sources are eliminated—it mandates that DEQ and Greensboro require industries
to stop their 1,4-dioxane pollution. For instance, as discussed further below in Section III(C), the
permitting process includes analysis of available technology that enables the agency and City to
determine how to prevent or control discharges.47 The agreement between Greensboro and DEQ
bypasses that process.
The Clean Water Act pretreatment program governs the discharge of industrial
wastewater to publicly owned treatment plants. These industrial wastewater discharges require
permits, known as pretreatment permits.48 Once appropriate limits are included in a treatment
plant’s NPDES permit, the municipality that runs the treatment plant—in this case,
Greensboro—is required to regulate its industries so that they do not cause the treatment plant to
violate its own NPDES permit.49 This is how the Clean Water Act “assures the public that
[industrial] dischargers cannot contravene the [Clean Water Act’s] objectives of eliminating or at

43 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B). 44 SOC at 3. 45 See DEQ 2016 1,4-Dioxane Report, supra note 23, at 5. 46 SOC at 3. 47 See infra Section III(C). 48 See 40 C.F.R. § 403. 49 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1).
A97
8
least minimizing discharges of toxic and other pollutants simply by discharging indirectly
through [wastewater treatment plants] rather than directly to receiving waters.”50 As is
appropriate, the pretreatment program is intended to place the burden of treating polluted
discharges on the entity that creates the pollution—rather than on the taxpayers that support
municipally owned treatment plants, or downstream communities that depend on rivers as public
water supplies.51
Moreover, municipalities that own and operate wastewater treatment plants, such as
Greensboro, are required to “immediately and effectively to halt or prevent any discharge of
pollutants to the [publicly owned treatment works] which reasonably appears to present an
imminent endangerment to the health or welfare of persons.”52 Together, these laws ensure that
municipally owned treatment plants do not become dumping grounds for uncontrolled industrial
waste. DEQ has an oversight role under the program. DEQ’s obligations under the pretreatment
program include the “[r]eview, approval, denial and oversight” of pretreatment programs.53
Greensboro, therefore, cannot allow industries to discharge pollutants that will endanger
human health,54 or allow industries to cause the City’s treatment plant to violate its own NPDES
permit.55 Greensboro must include limits on pollutants in pretreatment permits so that the City
does not exceed its own permit limits.56 At the same time, DEQ must issue NPDES permits with
strict 1,4-dioxane limits based on available treatment technology that also comply with water
quality standards.57 These permit limits force municipalities like Greensboro to properly
regulate its industries, because the City is required to “fully and effectively exercise[] and
implement[]” its regulatory authority over its industries to meet such limits.58 The pretreatment
program, therefore, mandates that DEQ and Greensboro strictly regulate 1,4-dioxane; and is
structured to put the burden of cleaning up the pollution on the industries that create it.
Greensboro has begun to address the 1,4-dioxane pollution coming from its industries,
but the City and DEQ’s failure to use their full authority under the pretreatment program has
resulted in years of delay and has endangered downstream communities. In 2015, the City was
already investigating its industrial sources of 1,4-dioxane.59 One industry reduced its 1,4-
dioxane discharge, which somewhat reduced the 1,4-dioxane in the City’s effluent.60 But
Greensboro did not require 1,4-dioxane limits in any industrial pretreatment permits, and DEQ
did not force the City to regulate the chemical by including limits in the City’s NPDES permit, as

50 General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources, 52 Fed. Reg. 1586, 1590 (Jan. 14, 1987)
(codified at 40 C.F.R. § 403). 51 Id. 52 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B). 53 Memorandum of Agreement Between the State of North Carolina and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency Region 4, 24 (Oct. 15, 2007), included as Attachment 6. 54 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B). 55 Id. at § 403.8(f)(1). 56 Id. at § 403.5(d). 57 See infra Sections III(C), (D). 58 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f). 59 SOC at 2. 60 Id.
A98
9
required by the Clean Water Act. As a result, Pittsboro and other communities downstream
continued to receive contaminated water.61
The consequences of that failure continue to be evident. The City continued to discharge
1,4-dioxane.62 In August 2019, Greensboro was caught discharging a particularly large amount
of 1,4-dioxane that caused unprecedented spikes in drinking water supplies downstream.63 One
of the City’s industries—Shamrock Environmental Corporation—was found to be responsible.64
The company now touts that it has installed technology to remove the chemical.65 This voluntary
action, however, comes after people downstream had already consumed Shamrock and
Greensboro’s toxic wastewater.66 If Greensboro had included 1,4-dioxane limits in its industries’
pretreatment permits after the City found out about its pollution in 2015, people downstream
would not have had to drink water contaminated by the City’s pollution for the past five years.
The proposed agreement between Greensboro and DEQ still does not require 1,4-dioxane
limits in the City’s NPDES permit, or in any industrial pretreatment permits.67 Not only does the
agreement violate the mandate of the Clean Water Act pretreatment program, it continues to
threaten communities downstream by failing to require action from Greensboro and its
industries.
C. DEQ should issue a NPDES permit with strict 1,4-dioxane limits based on what the
technology can achieve.
The agreement between Greensboro and DEQ states that “significant future reductions
will require [] technological advances.”68 But the Clean Water Act does not allow DEQ to wait
for technological advances. The Act is a technology-forcing statute. It is designed to stimulate
technological improvements, and not to allow harmful pollution to continue to be discharged in
hopes that someday someone will find a better solution. The Act, therefore, requires DEQ to
assess technology available now to remove pollutants, and to set permit limits based on that
technology.

61 See Knappe 2019 Presentation, supra note 1; HAW RIVER ASSEMBLY, supra note 17. 62 DEQ only started to require regular of monitoring of 1,4-dioxane in the past couple of years, but monitoring
reports regularly showed the presence of the chemical in the City’s effluent. See May 2018 DMR, supra note 15
(reporting a monthly average concentration of 331.8 408 µg/L); August 2018 DMR, supra note 15 (reporting a
monthly average concentration of 408 µg/L); March 2019 DMR, supra note 15 (reporting a monthly average
concentration of 24.2 µg/L). These reports are included as Attachment 2. 63 Greg Barnes, N.C. Health News, DEQ identifies Greensboro company responsible for discharging chemical,
CAROLINA PUBLIC PRESS (Oct. 16, 2019), https://carolinapublicpress.org/29409/deq-identifies-greensboro-company-
responsible-for-discharging-chemical/ (last visited July 10, 2020). 64 Taft Wireback, Greensboro dioxane settlement looms to environment's distress, GREENSBORO NEWS & RECORD
(July 3, 2020), https://www.greensboro.com/news/local_news/greensboro-dioxane-settlement-looms-to-
environments-distress/article_aa64e73f-9cd5-5c23-83fc-6b4431df0231.html. 65 Id. 66 See Knappe 2019 Presentation, supra note 1; HAW RIVER ASSEMBLY, supra note 17. 67 The SOC contains general language that Greensboro “[m]odify SIU permits or develop other pretreatment
program mechanisms as necessary,” but it does not actually require that the City impose limits that comply with the
Clean Water Act or that will be protective. SOC at 5-6. 68 SOC at 3.
A99
10
The Clean Water Act requires permitting agencies to, at the very least, incorporate,
technology-based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.69 Technology-based
effluent limits are “the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit.”70 North
Carolina water quality laws further state that municipalities must be treated like an industrial
discharger if an industry “significantly impact[s]” a municipal treatment system.71 In this
situation, the agency must assess technology-based effluent limits for Greensboro, even if
effluent limits and guidelines have not been published and adopted.72
Treatment technologies for 1,4-dioxane are available. For instance, the chemical can be
removed using advanced oxidation processes, such as using ultraviolet light in combination with
hydrogen peroxide.73 Such a process has been used at the Tucson International Airport Area
Superfund Site to remove legacy 1,4-dioxane contamination.74 That treatment system is able to
remove over 97 percent of the chemical from polluted water.75 One of Greensboro’s industries,
Shamrock Environmental Corporation, claims to have installed technology to eliminate not only
1,4-dioxane, but other pollutants as well.76 DEQ must assess treatment technology available for
Greensboro and its other industries.
D. State law on toxic substances requires that Greensboro’s discharge does not result in
levels above .35 ug/L in South Buffalo Creek.

The state toxic substances standard mandates that Greensboro’s discharge does not cause
levels downstream of the plant to exceed .35 µg/L in South Buffalo Creek—a drinking water
supply. The agreement between Greensboro and DEQ, on the other hand, only asks that the City
try to get to 35 µg/L—100 times higher than the level mandated by the standard.77
In addition to including technology-based effluent limits in the permit, Greensboro must
affirmatively demonstrate, and DEQ must ensure, that water quality standards will not be
violated. If there is a “reasonable potential” that water quality standards will be exceeded, DEQ
must include water quality-based effluent limits in the permit.78

1,4-dixoane is a likely carcinogen and is regulated under the North Carolina toxic
substances standard. The standard requires that “the concentration of toxic substances, either
alone or in combination with other wastes, in surface waters shall not render waters injurious to

69 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311. 70 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) (emphasis added). 71 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE 02B .0406 (a), (e). 72 Id. 73 Amie C. McElroy, et al., 1,4-Dioxane in drinking water: emerging for 40 years and still unregulated, 7 Current
Opinion in Envtl. Science & Health 117, 119 (2019), included as Attachment 7. 74 See Advanced Treatment for 1,4-Dioxane – Tucson Removes Contamination Through UV-oxidation, TrojanUV
CaseStudies (2019), included as Attachment 8. 75 Id. at 2; see also Educational Brochure, Tucson Airport Area Remediation Project, included as Attachment 9. 76 Wireback, supra note 64. 77 SOC at 6. As previously discussed, there are no real consequences if the City does not achieve this goal. 78 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(i), see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE 2H .0112(c) (stating that
DWR must “reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations.”).
A100
11
[…] public health, or impair the waters for any designated uses.”79 The standard further
mandates that “[t]he concentration of toxic substances shall not exceed the level necessary to
protect human health…”80 It is Greensboro’s burden to demonstrate that it can meet this
standard—the discharge authorized by the agreement does not.

For carcinogens, in particular, the state toxic substances standard requires that
concentrations “shall not result in unacceptable health risks,” which is further defined as “more
than one case of cancer per one million people exposed (10-6 risk level).”81 For 1,4-dioxane,
that level is .35 µg/L.82 Therefore, in order to comply with the toxic substance standard,
Greensboro must demonstrate, and DEQ must reasonably ensure, that the City’s discharges do
not cause levels in South Buffalo Creek to exceed .35 µg/L.

DEQ must also reasonably ensure compliance with North Carolina’s prohibition against
allowing “[o]ils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes” in waters classified as Class C
waters—which include the waters that would receive Greensboro’s discharge83—“to 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.”84

Consequently, DEQ must use its authority under the Clean Water Act to issue
Greensboro a permit with strict 1,4-dioxane limits based on available technology and
compliance with water quality standards.

IV. The failures in Greensboro and DEQ’s agreement will mean that
people downstream will continue to drink contaminated water.

Greensboro’s efforts to protect its industries and delay action—and DEQ’s complicity in
those efforts—have had severe consequences for people downstream: they have been drinking
water polluted with a likely carcinogen for years. This agreement continues on that path, with
wholly inadequate goals for pollution reduction and no meaningful requirement to achieve those
goals. We therefore urge DEQ to use its full authority under the Clean Water Act to require the
City to properly regulate its industries so that downstream communities are protected.

79 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE 2B .0208(a). North Carolina regulations define toxic substances broadly as “any
substance or combination of substances […], that, after discharge and upon exposure […], either directly from the
environment or indirectly […], has the potential to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions or suppression in reproduction or growth) or physical
deformities in [] organisms or their offspring.” 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE 2B .0202(54) (emphasis added). 80 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE 2B .0208(a)(2). 81 Id. at 2B .0208(a)(2)(B). 82 SOC at 2 (“EPA risk assessments indicate that the drinking water concentration representing a 1 in 1,000,000
cancer risk level for 1,4-dioxane is 0.35 µg/L.”). 83 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE. 02B .0211(12). Greensboro’s treatment plant discharges to Water Supply V waters,
which are also protected as Class C waters. SOC at 1; 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE 02B .0218. 84 15A N.C. ADMIN. CODE 02B .0211(12) (“[o]ils, deleterious substances, colored, or other wastes 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”).
A101
12
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely,

Jean Zhuang

Tirrill Moore

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-967-1450

Attachments

A102
1
Young, Brianna A
From:Mick Noland <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, December 11, 2020 4:46 PM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc:Elaina Ball; James West; Sean Sullivan ([e-mail]);
jaime.robinson
Subject:[External] T. Z. Osborne WWTP SOC
Attachments:T.Z. Osborne WWTP SOC.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Please find attached Fayetteville Public Works Commission’s comments relative to the revised, proposed T. Z.
Osborne WWTP SOC (second comment period). Hard copy has been mailed.
Thank you, Mick

Mick Noland, PE
Chief Operations Officer
Water Resources Division
Fayetteville Public Works Commission
955 Old Wilmington Road
P O Box 1089
Fayetteville, NC 28302
(W) 910-223-4733
(F) 910-829-0207
[e-mail]

The information contained in this communication (including any attachment) is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity named as the addressee(s) in the email. If you have received this transmission in error, please
reply and notify us of this error and delete this message. You should check this communication and any attachments
for the presence of viruses. The Fayetteville Public Works Commission accepts no liability for any damage caused by
any virus transmitted by this communication.
A103
A104
A105
A106
This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) is based on comments received during the public comment
period of the Special Order by Consent (SOC) for the City of Greensboro T.Z. Osborne WWTP.
In 2015, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sampling indicated elevated levels
of 1,4-dioxane in South Buffalo Creek below the City of Greensboro’s T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent
discharge. In response, the City of Greensboro began a 1,4-dioxane source identification and reduction
plan which included monitoring of the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and wastewater
collection system. By October 2015, the City had identified one of its Significant Industrial Users (SIU) as
one source of 1,4-dioxane to the WWTP. The identified SIU began its own source reduction plan, and the
levels of 1,4-dioxane in the T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent discharge subsequently decreased by 50% since
2016.
Beginning in December 2017, DEQ required the City of Greensboro to begin monthly effluent sampling
at the T.Z. Osborne WWTP and report data on monthly discharge monitoring reports. As part of the City
of Greensboro’s efforts to further reduce 1,4-dioxane from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP effluent, the City
applied for a Special Order by Consent (SOC) in November 2019. After a draft SOC was agreed to by both
parties, it was sent to public notice, which ran from June 22, 2020 through July 24, 2020. This public
notice period allowed interested parties to review the proposed SOC and submit comments. During this
public notice period, DEQ received 344 comments from 331 individual commenters. The primary
concerns raised were that DEQ has the authority to regulate and hold responsible the City of
Greensboro and industry, that discharge concentrations should be reduced, and that a public hearing
should be held on the proposed SOC.
In response to public comments received on the proposed SOC, DEQ made several changes to the
document and the City of Greensboro agreed to these changes. The most significant of the changes
includes: (1) the reduction of the compliance value in Year One of the SOC, (2) the removal of the word
voluntary in regard to source reduction in Year One of the SOC, and (3) the clarification that the
compliance values for each SOC year take effect on the respective first day of each year. The revised
version of the SOC incorporates the changes mentioned above and will go out to a second public notice
period with an accompanying public hearing.
What is 1,4-dioxane? Why is it in the environment?
1,4-dioxane is a chemical compound and byproduct found in many consumer goods such as paint
strippers, dyes, greases, plastics, antifreeze, aircraft deicing fluids, and in trace amounts in some
consumer products such as deodorants, shampoo, and cosmetics. 1,4-dioxane can also be used as a
purifying agent in pharmaceuticals manufacturing. Traces of 1,4-dioxane may be present in food
supplements and packaging adhesives or on food crops treated with pesticides. Due to this broad range
of uses, 1,4-dioxane is widely distributed in the environment.
With this widespread environmental distribution, 1,4-dioxane has been detected in some drinking water
supplies and reservoirs at levels greater than 1.0 µg/L. Therefore, even if Significant Industrial Users
(SIUs) are able to stop releasing 1,4-dioxane to POTWs in wastewater flows, there may still be a
background level present from other historical sources in surface waters that would prevent POTWs
from obtaining the In-stream Target Value of 0.35 µg/L in surface waters classified as water supply.
A107

What are 1,4-dioxane regulatory requirements?
Regulations in 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02B, administered by the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC), provides DEQ the ability to offer numeric interpretations of narrative
standards for toxics detected in the surface waters of North Carolina. A value of 0.35 micrograms per
liter (µg/L) is calculated as the “In-Stream Target Value” for the protection of humans in “water supply”
(WS) classified waters. An “In-stream Target Value” reflects calculations for acceptable risks based on
best available data. These values assume a cancer risk level of one additional occurrence of cancer per
million people.
In September 2017, EPA established a standard wastewater analytical method for sampling 1,4-dioxane
in 40 CFR Part 136 as Analytical Method 624.1. Grab samples are the required collection method, and
the practical quantitation limit (PQL) (i.e. the lowest level the method can detect) is 1.0 µg/L due to
limitations in current technology.
North Carolina regulates drinking water suppliers using the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum
Contaminants Level (MCLs). Currently, there are no federal EPA MCL requirements for 1,4-dioxane for
finished drinking water consumption. The EPA's Office of Water developed Health Advisory levels for
1,4-dioxane of 35 µg/L. Health advisories provide information on contaminants that can cause human
health effects and are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water. EPA's health advisories are non-
enforceable, non-regulatory, and provide technical information to state agencies and other public health
officials on health effects, analytical methodologies, and treatment technologies associated with
drinking water contamination. EPA’s health advisory level for 1,4-dioxane offers a margin of protection
for all Americans throughout their life from adverse health effects resulting from exposure to 1,4-
dioxane in drinking water. The EPA chose a cancer risk level at 1 additional occurrence of cancer per
10,000 persons as the target risk. While the EPA has listed 1,4-dioxane as a chemical of concern, after
review, it was not selected for regulation development. Therefore, the non-regulatory Health Advisory
of 35 µg/L remains in effect.
The state has considered the calculated In-stream Target Values and the US EPA’s Drinking Water Health
Advisory value for 1,4-dioxane when developing 1,4-dioxane reduction plans in order to protect aquatic
life and fish and water consumption uses downstream. The state continues to monitor surface water
quality throughout North Carolina to provide insight into the potential effects of 1,4-dioxane
concentrations reported.

How does the pretreatment program work?
The Pretreatment Program is a nationwide program designed to prevent pass-through, interference, and
other adverse impacts to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) from industrial wastewater. Process
wastewater discharged to POTWs from industrial facilities has the potential to include chemical
substances and contaminants. In general, POTWs are not designed to treat toxic or chemical
contaminants, so the pretreatment program functions to reduce, eliminate, or alter these pollutants
before they can enter the sanitary sewer system. Otherwise, these substances could pass through the
A108

wastewater treatment system without being treated or can interfere with the treatment process,
making it less effective.
This program is mandated under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). DEQ delegates pretreatment
program responsibilities to local governments that own and operate POTWs, which in turn permit SIUs
within their systems. These requirements are enforced through the NPDES permit issued to POTWs by
DEQ. Local POTW officials are most familiar with their industrial users and are generally in the best
position to recognize and correct problems within their own treatment systems. Greensboro's
Pretreatment Program is administered by DEQ as the Oversight Authority with the City of Greensboro as
the Control Authority. POTWs are required to meet the mandated CWA pretreatment objectives by
establishing discharge standards for pollutants of concern and identifying and issuing permits to SIUs.
POTWs ensure SIUs comply with permits by conducting facility inspections and reviewing submitted
reports. POTWs must adopt the federal pretreatment standards into their sewer use ordinance and
develop local limits to adequately protect their collection and treatment systems. There are over 600
SIUs who discharge industrial wastewater to more than 110 POTWs throughout the State of North
Carolina.

What is an SOC? How does it relate to the T.Z. Osborne WWTP?
A Special Order by Consent (SOC) is an agreement between DEQ and a permittee to bring a facility into
compliance when the facility is unable to consistently comply with the terms, conditions, or limitations
in a permit. An SOC allow limits for particular parameters to be relaxed, but only for a time determined
while tangible actions are undertaken to fix the underlying problems causing the noncompliance.
On November 14, 2019, DEQ issued a Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess Civil Penalties against the
City of Greensboro for a discharge of 1,4-dioxane of 957.5 µg/L that occurred on August 7, 2019. DEQ
calculations predict that 1,4-dioxane concentrations of this magnitude within the T. Z. Osborne WWTP
effluent discharge may have caused the instream concentration of 1,4-dioxane to exceed the 35 µg/L
EPA health advisory level at a downstream drinking water supply raw water intake location. The purpose
of the City of Greensboro’s SOC is to reduce concentrations of 1,4-dioxane being discharged into the
receiving stream in order to protect drinking water sources downstream of the T.Z. Osborne WWTP
effluent discharge. This will be done by ensuring the drinking water standard of 35 µg/L is met at the
point of the drinking water intakes.

How is DEQ addressing 1,4-dioxane discharges from the T.Z. Osborne WWTP?
DEQ is working with the City of Greensboro to address discharges of 1,4-dioxane from the T.Z. Osborne
WWTP. One measure to accomplish this is through the SOC, which mandates reductions in the level of
1,4-dioxane in the receiving stream primarily through source reduction. Source reduction could include
SIUs treating their wastewater before discharging it into the collection system. Additional measures will
be taken by DEQ to address the North Carolina In-stream Target Value at the discharge location of the
T.Z. Osborne WWTP as well as in all surface waters across the state.
A109

One such mechanism to further reduce 1,4-dioxane concentrations in surface waters may be through
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Future NPDES permits for the T.Z.
Osborne WWTP may include an effluent limit for 1,4-dioxane and/or special conditions that dictate
actions the City of Greensboro may need to take in order to meet the allowable 1,4-dioxane In-stream
Target Value at the point of discharge.
A110
Technical Fact Sheet – 1,4-Dioxane
November 2017
Introduction
This fact sheet, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), provides a summary of the emerging contaminant 1,4-dioxane, including physical and chemical properties; environmental and health impacts; existing federal and state guidelines; detection and treatment methods; and additional sources of information. This fact sheet is intended for use by site managers who may address 1,4-dioxane at cleanup sites or in drinking water supplies and for those in a position to consider whether 1,4-dioxane should be added to the analytical suite for site investigations.
1,4-Dioxane is a likely human carcinogen and has been found in groundwater at sites throughout the United States. The physical and chemical properties and behavior of 1,4-dioxane create challenges for its characterization and treatment. It is highly mobile and does not readily biodegrade in the environment. What is 1,4-dioxane?
 1,4-Dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical that is completely miscible in water (EPA 2006; ATSDR 2012).
 Synonyms include dioxane, dioxan, p-dioxane, diethylene dioxide, diethylene oxide, diethylene ether and glycol ethylene ether (EPA 2006; ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
 1,4-Dioxane is unstable at elevated temperatures and pressures and may form explosive mixtures with prolonged exposure to light or air
(EPA 2006; HSDB 2011).
 1,4-Dioxane is a likely contaminant at many sites contaminated with certain chlorinated solvents (particularly 1,1,1-trichloroethane [TCA]) because of its widespread use as a stabilizer for chlorinated solvents (EPA 2013a; Mohr 2001). Historically, the main use (90 percent) of 1,4-dioxane was as a stabilizer of chlorinated solvents such as TCA (ATSDR 2012). Use of TCA was phased out under the 1995 Montreal Protocol and the use of 1,4-dioxane as a solvent stabilizer was terminated (ECJRC 2002; NTP 2016). Lack of recent reports for other previously reported uses suggest that many other industrial, commercial and consumer uses were also stopped.
At a Glance
 Flammable liquid and a fire hazard. Potentially explosive if exposed to light or air.
 Found at many federal facilities because of its widespread use as a stabilizer in certain chlorinated solvents, paint strippers, greases and waxes.
 Short-lived in the atmosphere, may leach readily from soil to groundwater, migrates rapidly in groundwater and is relatively resistant to biodegradation in the subsurface.
 Classified by EPA as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure.
 Short-term exposure may cause eye, nose and throat irritation; long-term exposure may cause kidney and liver damage.
 Federal screening levels, state health-based drinking water guidance values and federal occupational exposure limits have been established.
 Modifications to existing sample preparation procedures may be required to achieve the increased sensitivity needed for detection of 1,4-dioxane.
 Common treatment technologies include advanced oxidation processes and bioremediation.
 No federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) has been established for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water.
Disclaimer: The U.S. EPA prepared this fact sheet using the most recent publicly-available scientific information; additional information can be obtained from the source documents. This fact sheet is not intended to be used as a primary source of information and is not intended, nor can it be relied on, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
TECHNICAL FACT SHEET – 1,4-DIOXANE
A111
 It is a by-product present in many goods, including paint strippers, dyes, greases, antifreeze and aircraft deicing fluids, and in some consumer products (deodorants, shampoos and cosmetics) (ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
 1,4-Dioxane is used as a purifying agent in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and is a by-
product in the manufacture of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic (Mohr 2001).
 Traces of 1,4-dioxane may be present in some food supplements, food containing residues from packaging adhesives or on food crops treated with pesticides that contain 1,4-dioxane (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011).
Exhibit 1: Physical and Chemical Properties of 1,4-Dioxane (ATSDR 2012)

Property 1,4-Dioxane
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number 123-91-1
Physical description (physical state at room temperature) Clear, flammable liquid with a faint, pleasant odor
Molecular weight (g/mol) 88.11
Water solubility Miscible
Melting point (oC) 11.8
Boiling point (oC) at 760 mm Hg 101.1
Vapor pressure at 25oC (mm Hg) 38.1
Specific gravity 1.033
Octanol-water partition coefficient (log Kow) -0.27
Organic carbon partition coefficient (log Koc) 1.23
Henry’s law constant at 25 oC (atm-m3/mol) 4.80 X 10-6
Abbreviations: g/mol – grams per mole; oC – degrees Celsius; mm Hg – millimeters of mercury; atm-m3/mol – atmosphere-cubic meters per mole
Existence of 1,4-dioxane in the environment
 1,4-Dioxane is typically found at some solvent release sites and PET manufacturing facilities (ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
 It is short-lived in the atmosphere, with an estimated 1- to 3-day half-life due to photooxidation (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011).
 Migration to groundwater is weakly retarded by sorption of 1,4-dioxane to soil particles; it is expected to move rapidly from soil to groundwater (EPA 2006; ATSDR 2012).
 It is relatively resistant to biodegradation in water and soil, although recent studies have identified degrading bacteria (Inoue 2016; Pugazhendi 2015; Sales 2013).
 It does not bioaccumulate, biomagnify, or bioconcentrate in the food chain (ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
 1,4-Dioxane is frequently present at sites with TCA contamination (Mohr 2001; Adamson 2014).
 It may migrate rapidly in groundwater, ahead of other contaminants (DHHS 2011; EPA 2006).
 Where delineated, 1,4-dioxane is frequently found within previously delineated chlorinated solvent plumes and existing monitoring networks (Adamson 2014).
 As of 2016, 1,4-dioxane had been identified at more than 34 sites on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL); it may be present (but samples were not analyzed for it) at many other sites (EPA 2016b).

A112
What are the routes of exposure and the potential health effects of 1,4-dioxane?
 Exposure may occur through ingestion of contaminated food and water, or dermal contact. Worker exposures may include inhalation of vapors (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011; EU 2002).
 Potential exposure could occur during production and use of 1,4-dioxane as a stabilizer or solvent (DHHS 2011; EU 2002).
 Short-term exposure to high levels of 1,4-dioxane may result in nausea, drowsiness, headache, and irritation of the eyes, nose and throat (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2013b; NIOSH 2010; EU 2002). 1,4-Dioxane is readily absorbed through the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. Some 1,4-dioxane may also pass through the skin, but studies indicate that much of it will evaporate before it is absorbed. Distribution is rapid and uniform in the lung, liver, kidney, spleen, colon and skeletal muscle tissue (ATSDR 2012).
 1,4-Dioxane is weakly genotoxic and reproductive effects in humans are unknown; however, a developmental study on rats indicated that 1,4-
dioxane may be slightly toxic to the developing fetus (ATSDR 2012; Giavini and others 1985).
 Animal studies showed increased incidences of nasal cavity, liver and gall bladder tumors after exposure to 1,4-dioxane (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011; EPA IRIS 2013).
 EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure (EPA IRIS 2013).
 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that “1,4-dioxane is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals” (DHHS 2011).
 The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) considers 1,4-dioxane a potential occupational carcinogen (NIOSH 2010).
 The European Union has classified 1,4-dioxane as having limited evidence of carcinogenic effect (EU 2002).
Are there any federal and state guidelines and health standards for 1,4-dioxane?
 EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database includes a chronic oral reference dose (RfD) of 0.03 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) based on liver and kidney toxicity in animals and a chronic inhalation reference concentration (RfC) of 0.03 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) based on atrophy and respiratory metaplasia inside the nasal cavity of animals (EPA IRIS 2013).
 The cancer risk assessment for 1,4-dioxane is based on an oral slope factor of 0.1 mg/kg/day and the drinking water unit risk is 2.9 x 10-6 micrograms per liter (µg/L) (EPA IRIS 2013).
 EPA risk assessments indicate that the drinking water concentration representing a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level for 1,4-dioxane is 0.35 µg/L (EPA IRIS 2013).
 No federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water has been established (EPA 2012).
 1,4-Dioxane is included on the fourth drinking water contaminant candidate list and is included in the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (EPA 2009; EPA 2016a).
 EPA’s drinking water equivalent level is 1 mg/L (EPA 2012). EPA has calculated a screening level of 0.46 µg/L for tap water, based on a 1 in 10-6 lifetime excess cancer risk (EPA 2017b).
 EPA established a 1-day health advisory of 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and a 10-day health advisory of 0.4 mg/L in drinking water for a 10-kilogram child and a lifetime health advisory of 0.2 mg/L in drinking water (EPA 2012).
 EPA has calculated a residential soil screening level (SSL) of 5.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and an industrial SSL of 24 mg/kg. The soil-to-groundwater risk-based SSL is 9.4 x 10-5 mg/kg (EPA 2017b).
 EPA has calculated a residential air screening level of 0.56 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and an industrial air screening level of 2.5 µg/m3 (EPA 2017b).
 A reportable quantity of 100 pounds has been established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (EPA 2011).
 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established a permissible
A113
exposure limit (PEL) for 1,4-dioxane of 100 parts per million (ppm) or 360 mg/m3 as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). While OSHA has established a PEL for 1,4-dioxane, OSHA has recognized that many of its PELs are outdated and inadequate for ensuring the protection of worker health. OSHA recommends that employers follow the California OSHA limit of 0.28 ppm, the NIOSH recommended exposure limit of 1 ppm as a 30-minute ceiling, or the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold limit value of 20 ppm (OSHA 2017).
 Various states have established drinking water and groundwater guidelines, including the following:

State Guideline (µg/L) Source
Alaska 77 AL DEC 2016
California 1.0 Cal/EPA 2011
Colorado 0.35 CDPHE 2017
Connecticut 3.0 CTDPH 2013
Delaware 6.0 DE DNR 1999
Florida 3.2 FDEP 2005
Indiana 7.8 IDEM 2015
Maine 4.0 MEDEP 2016
Massachusetts 0.3 MADEP 2004
Mississippi 6.09 MS DEQ 2002
New Hampshire 0.25 NH DES 2011
New Jersey 0.4 NJDEP 2015
North Carolina 3.0 NCDENR 2015
Pennsylvania 6.4 PADEP 2011
Texas 9.1 TCEQ 2016
Vermont 3.0 VTDEP 2016
Washington 0.438 WA ECY 2015
West Virginia 6.1 WV DEP 2009

What detection and site characterization methods are available for 1,4-dioxane?
 As a result of the limitations in the analytical methods to detect 1,4-dioxane, it has been difficult to identify its occurrence in the environment. The miscibility of 1,4-dioxane in water causes poor purging efficiency and results in high detection limits (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2006; Mohr 2001).
 The Contract Laboratory Program SOW SOM02.3 includes a CRQL of 2.0 µg/L in water, 67 µg/kg in low soil and 2,000 µg/kg in medium soil (EPA 2013c).
 Conventional analytical methods can detect 1,4-dioxane only at concentrations 100 times greater than the concentrations of volatile organic compounds. Modifications of existing analytical methods and their sample preparation procedures may be needed to achieve lower detection limits for 1,4-dioxane (EPA 2006; Mohr 2001).
 High-temperature sample preparation techniques improve the recovery of 1,4-dioxane. These techniques include purging at elevated temperature (EPA SW-846 Method 5030); equilibrium headspace analysis (EPA SW-846
Method 5021); vacuum distillation (EPA SW-846 Method 8261); and azeotropic distillation (EPA SW-846 Method 5031) (EPA 2006).
 NIOSH Method 1602 uses gas chromatography – flame ionization detection (GC-FID) to determine the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in air (ATSDR 2012; NIOSH 2010).
 EPA SW-846 Method 8015D uses gas chromatography (GC) to determine the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in environmental samples. Samples may be introduced into the GC column by a variety of techniques including the injection of the concentrate from azeotropic distillation (EPA SW-846 Method 5031). The lower quantitation limits for 1,4-dioxane in aqueous matrices by azeotropic microdistillation are 12 µg/L (reagent water), 15 µg/L (groundwater) and 16 µg/L (leachate) (EPA 2003).
 EPA SW-846 Method 8260B detects 1,4-dioxane in a variety of solid waste matrices using GC and mass spectrometry (MS). The detection limit
A114
depends on the instrument and choice of sample preparation method (ATSDR 2012).
 A laboratory study is underway to develop a passive flux meter (PFM) approach to enhance the capture of 1,4-dioxane in the PFM sorbent to improve accuracy. Results to date show that the PFM is capable of quantifying low absorbing compounds such as 1,4-dioxane (DoD SERDP 2013b).
 EPA Method 1624 uses isotopic dilution gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to detect 1,4-dioxane in water, soil and municipal discharges. The detection limit for this method is 10 µg/L (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2001b).
 EPA SW-846 Method 8270 uses liquid-liquid extraction and isotope dilution by capillary column GC-MS. This method is often modified for the detection of low levels of 1,4-dioxane in water (EPA 2007).
 EPA Method 522 uses solid phase extraction and GC-MS with selected ion monitoring for the detection of 1,4-dioxane in drinking water with detection limits as low as 0.02 µg/L (EPA 2008).
 GC-MS detection methods using solid phase extraction followed by desorption with an organic solvent have been developed to remove 1,4-dioxane from the aqueous phase. Detection limits as low as 0.03 µg/L have been achieved by passing the aqueous sample through an activated carbon column, following by elution with acetone- dichloromethane (ATSDR 2012; Kadokami and others 1990).
 Lab studies indicate effective methods for monitoring growth of dioxane-degrading bacteria in culture (Gedalanga 2014).
 Studies are underway to develop and assess methods for performing compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) on low levels of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater (DoD SERDP 2016).
What technologies are being used to treat 1,4-dioxane?
 Pump-and-treat remediation can treat dissolved 1,4-dioxane in groundwater and control groundwater plume migration, but requires ex-situ treatment tailored for the unique properties of 1,4-dioxane (e.g., its low octanol-water partition coefficient makes 1,4-dioxane hydrophilic) (EPA 2006; Kiker and others 2010).
 Commercially available advanced oxidation processes using hydrogen peroxide with ultraviolet light or ozone can be used to treat 1,4-dioxane in wastewater (Asano and others 2012; EPA 2006).
 Peroxone and iron activated persulfate oxidation of 1,4-dioxane might aid in the cleanup of VOC-contaminated sites (Eberle 2015; Zhong 2015; Li 2016; SERDP 2013d).
 In-situ chemical oxidation can be successfully combined with bioaugmentation for managing dioxane contamination (DoD SERDP 2013d; Adamson 2015).
 Ex-situ bioremediation using a fixed-film, moving- bed biological treatment system is also used to treat 1,4-dioxane in groundwater (EPA 2006).
 Electrical resistance heating may be an effective treatment method (Oberle 2015).
 Phytoremediation is being explored as a means to remove the compound from shallow groundwater. Pilot-scale studies have demonstrated the ability of hybrid poplars to take up and effectively
degrade or deactivate 1,4-dioxane (EPA 2001a, 2013a; Ferro and others 2013).
 Microbial degradation in engineered bioreactors has been documented under enhanced conditions or where selected strains of bacteria capable of degrading 1,4-dioxane are cultured, but the impact of the presence of chlorinated solvent co-contaminants on biodegradation of 1,4-dioxane needs to be further investigated (EPA 2006, 2013a; Mahendra and others 2013).
 Results from a 2012 laboratory study found 1,4-dioxane-transforming activity to be relatively common among monooxygenase-expressing bacteria; however, both TCA and 1,1-dichloroethene inhibited 1,4-dioxane degradation by bacterial isolates (DoD SERDP 2012).
 Isobutane-metabolizing bacteria can consistently degrade low (<100 ppb) concentrations of 1,4-dioxane, often to concentrations <1 ppb. These organisms also can degrade many chlorinated co-contaminants such as TCA and 1,1-dichoroethene (1,1-DCE) (DoD SERDP 2013c).
 Ethane effectively serves as a cometabolite for facilitating the biodegradation of 1,4-dioxane at relevant field concentrations (DoD SERDP 2013f).
 Biodegradation rates are subject to interactions among transition metals and natural organic ligands in the environment. (Pornwongthong 2014; DoD SERDP 2013e).
A115
 Photocatalysis has been shown to remove 1,4-dioxane in aqueous solutions. Laboratory studies documented that the surface plasmon resonance of gold nanoparticles on titanium dioxide (Au – TiO2) promotes the photocatalytic degradation of 1,4-dioxane (Min and others 2009; Vescovi and others 2010).
 Other in-well combined treatment technologies being assessed include air sparging; soil vapor extraction (SVE); enhanced bioremediation-
oxidation; and dynamic subsurface groundwater circulation (Odah and others 2005).
 1,4-Dioxane was reduced by greater than 90 percent in the treatment zone with no apparent downward migration of 1,4-dioxane using enhanced or extreme SVE, which uses a combination of increased air flow, sweeping with drier air, increased temperature, decreased infiltration and more focused vapor extraction to enhance 1,4-dioxane remediation in soils (DoD SERDP 2013a).
Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane?
 Adamson, D. Mahendra S., Walker, K, Rauch, S., Sengupta, S., and C. Newell. 2014. “A Multisite Survey to Identify the Scale of the 1,4-Dioxane Problem at Contaminated Groundwater Sites.” Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 1 (5). Pages 254 to 258.
 Adamson, D., Anderson R., Mahendra, S., and C. Newell. 2015. “Evidence of 1,4-Dioxane Attenuation at Groundwater Sites Contaminated with Chlorinated Solvents and 1,4-Dioxane.” Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 49 (11). Pages 6510 to 6518.
 Alaska Department of Environmental (AL DEC). 2008. “Groundwater Cleanup Levels.” dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/guidance_forms/docs/Groundwater_Cleanup_Levels.pdf
 Asano, M., Kishimoto, N., Shimada, H., and Y. Ono. 2012. “Degradation of 1,4-Dioxane Using Ozone Oxidation with UV Irradiation (Ozone/UV) Treatment.” Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering. Volume A (1). Pages 371 to 379.
 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2012. “Toxicological Profile for 1,4-Dioxane.” www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/TP.asp?id=955&tid=199
 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2011. “1,4-Dioxane.” Drinking Water Systems. www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/14-Dioxane.shtml
 Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE). 2017. “The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water.” https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/
31_2017-03.pdf
 Connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDEP). 2013. “Action Level List for Private Wells.”
www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/eoha/groundwater_well_contamination/110916_ct_action_level_list_nov_2016_update.pdf
 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DE DNREC). 1999. “Remediation Standards Guidance.” www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/AW
M/sirb/DOCS/PDFS/Misc/RemStnd.pdf
 European Chemicals Bureau. 2002. European Union Risk Assessment Report 1,4-Dioxane. echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/a4e83a6a-c421-4243-a8df-3e84893082aa
 Ferro, A.M., Kennedy, J., and J.C. LaRue. 2013.
“Phytoremediation of 1,4-Dioxane-Containing Recovered Groundwater.” International Journal of Phytoremediation. Volume 15. Pages 911 to 923.
 Gedalanga, P., Pornwongthong, P., Mora, R., Chiang, S., Baldwin, B., Ogles, D., and S. Mahendra. 2014. “Identification of Biomarker Genes to Predict Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Volume 10. Pages 3209 to 3218.
 Giavini, E., Vismara, C., and M.L Broccia. 1985. “Teratogenesis Study of Dioxane in Rats.” Toxicology Letters. Volume 26 (1). Pages 85 to 88.
 Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). 2011. “1,4-Dioxane.” toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
 Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). 2016. “IDEM Screening and Closure Levels.” www.in.gov/idem/
landquality/files/risc_screening_table_2016.pdf
 Inoue, D., Tsunoda, T., Sawada, K., Yamamoto,
N., Saito, Y., Sei, K., and M. Ike. 2016. “1,4-Dioxane degradation potential of members of the genera Pseudonocardia and Rhodococcus.” Biodegradation. Volume 27. Pages 277 to 286.
A116
Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
 Kadokami, K., Koga, M., and A. Otsuki. 1990. “Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometric Determination of Traces of Hydrophilic and Volatile Organic Compounds in Water after Preconcentration with Activated Carbon.” Analytical Sciences. Volume 6 (6). Pages 843 to 849.
 Kiker, J.H., Connolly, J.B., Murray, W.A., Pearson, S.C., Reed, S.E., and R.J. Robert. 2010. “Ex-Situ Wellhead Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane Using Fenton's Reagent.” Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy. Volume 15, Article 18.
 Li, B., and J. Zhu. 2016. “Simultaneous Degradation Of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane and Solvent Stabilizer 1,4-Dioxane by a Sono-Activated Persulfate Process.” Chemical Engineering Journal. Volume 284 (15). Pages 750 to 763.
 Mahendra, S., Grostern, A., and L. Alvarez-Cohen. 2013. “The Impact of Chlorinated Solvent Co- Contaminants on the Biodegradation Kinetics of 1,4-Dioxane.” Chemosphere. Volume 91 (1). Pages 88 to 92.
 Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP). 2016. “Maine Remedial Action Guidelines (RAGs) for Sites Contaminated with Hazardous Substances.” www.maine.gov/dep/spills/publications/guidance/rags/ME-RAGS-Revised-Final_020516.pdf
 Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (Mass DEP). 2012. “Standards and Guidelines or Contaminants in Massachusetts Drinking Waters.” www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/drinking/standards/standards-and-guidelines-for-drinking-water-contaminants.html
 Min, B.K., Heo, J.E., Youn, N.K., Joo, O.S., Lee, H., Kim, J.H., and H.S. Kim. 2009. “Tuning of the Photocatalytic 1,4-Dioxane Degradation with Surface Plasmon Resonance of Gold Nanoparticles on Titania.” Catalysis Communications. Volume 10 (5). Pages 712 to 715.
 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MS DEQ). 2002. “Risk Evaluation Procedures for Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment of
Brownfield Sites.” www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/GARD_brownfieldrisk/$File/Proced.pdf
 Mohr, T.K.G. 2001. “1,4-Dioxane and Other Solvent Stabilizers White Paper.” Santa Clara Valley Water District of California. San Jose, California.
 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2010. “Dioxane.” NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0237.html
 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES). 2011. “Change in Reporting Limit for 1,4-Dioxane.” www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/waste/hwrb/sss/hwrp/documents/report-limits14dioxane.pdf
 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2015. “Interim Ground Water Quality Standards.” www.nj.gov/dep/wms/bears/gwqs_interim_criteria_table.htm
 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2013. “Groundwater Classification and Standards.” https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-rules/nc-administrative-code-statutes
 Oberle, D. Crownover, E., and M. Kluger. 2015. “In Situ Remediation of 1,4-Dioxane Using Electrical Resistance Heating.” Remediation Journal. Volume 25 (2). Pages 35 to 42.
 Odah, M.M., Powell, R., and D.J. Riddle. 2005. “ART In-Well Technology Proves Effective in Treating 1,4-Dioxane Contamination.” Remediation Journal. Volume 15 (3). Pages 51 to 64.
 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2017 Permissible Exposure Limits – Annotated Tables, Table Z-1. www.osha. gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html
 Pornwongthong, P., Mulchandani A., Gedalanga, P.B., and S. Mahendra. 2014. “Transition Metals and Organic Ligands Influence Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane.” Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. Volume 173 (1). Pages 291 to 306.

A117
Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
 Pugazhendi, A., Banu, J., Dhavamani, J., and I. Yeom. 2015. “Biodegradation of 1,4-dioxane by Rhodanobacter AYS5 and the Role of Additional Substrates.” Annals of Microbiology. Volume 645. Pages 2201 to 2208.
 Sales, C., Grostrem, A., Parales, J., Parales, R., and L. Alvarez-Cohen. 2013. “Oxidation of the Cyclic Ethers 1,4-Dioxane and Tetrahydrofuran by a Monooxygenase in Two Pseudonocardia species.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Volume 79. Pages 7702 to 7708.
 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2016. “Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs).” www.tceq.texas.gov/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html
 U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). 2012. “Oxygenase-Catalyzed Biodegradation of Emerging Water Contaminants: 1,4-Dioxane and N-Nitrosodimethylamine.” ER-1417. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-1417
 DoD SERDP. 2013a. “1,4-Dioxane Remediation
by Extreme Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE).” ER-201326. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-201326
 DoD SERDP. 2013b. “Development of a Passive Flux Meter Approach to Quantifying 1,4-Dioxane Mass Flux.” ER-2304. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2304
 DoD SERDP. 2013c. “Evaluation of Branched Hydrocarbons as Stimulants for In Situ Cometabolic Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane and Its Associated Co-Contaminants.” ER-2303. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2303
 DoD SERDP. 2013d. “Facilitated Transport
Enabled In Situ Chemical Oxidation of 1,4-Dioxane-Contaminated Groundwater.” ER-2302.
www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2302
 DoD SERDP. 2013e. “In Situ Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane: Effects of Metals and Chlorinated Solvent Co-Contaminants.” ER-2300. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2300
 DoD SERDP. 2013f. “In Situ Bioremediation of 1,4-Dioxane by Methane Oxidizing Bacteria in Coupled Anaerobic-Aerobic Zones.” ER-2306. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2306
 DoD SERDP. 2016. “Extending the Applicability of Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis to Low Concentrations of 1,4-Dioxane.” ER-2535. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2535/ER-2535
 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 2014. “Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition.” Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 13th Edition. ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/dioxane.pdf
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996a. “Method 8260B: Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).” www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/8260b.pdf
 EPA. 2001a. “Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup.” EPA 542-R-01-006. www.brownfieldstsc.org/pdfs/phytoremprimer.pdf
 EPA. 2001b. “Appendix A To Part 136—Methods For Organic Chemical Analysis Of Municipal And Industrial Wastewater, Method 1624.” Code of Federal Regulations. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Part 136.
 EPA. 2003. “Method 8015D: Nonhalogenated Organics Using GC/FID.” SW-846. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
12/documents/8015d_r4.pdf

A118
Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
 EPA. 2006. “Treatment Technologies for 1,4-Dioxane: Fundamentals and Field Applications.” EPA 542-R-06-009. clu-in.org/download/remed/542r06009.pdf
 EPA. 2007. “Method 8270D: Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).” www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/epa-8270d.pdf
 EPA. 2008. “Method 522: Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water By Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM).” EPA/600/R-08/101. cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=199229
 EPA. 2009. “Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3 – Final.” Federal Register Notice. www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/10/08/E9-24287/drinking-water-contaminant-candidate-list-3-final
 EPA. 2011. “Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Substances Designated Pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Code of Federal Regulations.” 40 CFR 302.4. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title40-vol28/pdf/CFR-2011-title40-vol28-sec302-4.pdf
 EPA. 2012. “2012 Edition of Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories.” www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/dwstandards2012.pdf
 EPA. 2013a. “1,4-Dioxane.” clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/1,4-Dioxane/cat/Overview/
 EPA. 2013b. “1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide).” Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website. semspub.epa.gov/work/09/2129341.pdf
 EPA. 2013c. “EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organic Superfund Methods SOM02.3.” www.epa.gov/clp/epa-
contract-laboratory-program-statement-work-organic-superfund-methods-multi-media-multi-0
 EPA. 2016a. “Contaminant Candidate List 4-CCL 4.” www.epa.gov/ccl/draft-contaminant-candidate-list-4-ccl-4
 EPA. 2016b. Superfund Information Systems. Superfund Site Information. cumulis.epa. gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
 EPA. 2017b. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table. www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables-may-2016
 EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2013. “1,4-Dioxane (CASRN 123-91-1).” cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=326
 Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC). 2016. “Interim Groundwater Quality Standards.” dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/interimgwqstandards_2016.pdf
 Vescovi, T., Coleman, H., and R. Amal. 2010. “The Effect of pH on UV-Based Advanced Oxidation Technologies - 1,4-Dioxane Degradation.” Journal of Hazardous Materials. Volume 182. Pages 75 to 79.
 Washington Department of Ecology (ECY). 2015. “Groundwater Methods B and A ARARs.” fortress.wa.gov/ecy/clarc/FocusSheets/Groundwater%20Methods%20B%20and%20A%20and%20ARARs.pdf
 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP). 2009. “Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Rule.” www.dep.wv.gov/dlr/oer/voluntarymain/Documents/60CSR3%20VRRA%20rule%206-5-09.pdf
 Zhong, H., Brusseau, M., Wang, Y., Yan, N., Quiq,
L., and G. Johnson. 2015. “In-Situ Activation of Persulfate by Iron Filings and Degradation of 1,4-Dioxane” Water Research. Volume 83. Pages 104 to 111.
Contact Information
If you have any questions or comments on this fact sheet, please contact: Mary Cooke, FFRRO, at [e-mail].
A119
2018 Edition of the Drinking
Water Standards and Health
Advisories Tables
The 2012 Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
(DWSHA) Tables were amended March 2018 to fix typographical
errors and add health advisories published after 2012.
A120

2018 Edition of the Drinking Water
Standards and Health Advisories
EPA 822-F-18-001
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
March 2018

Recycled/Recyclable Printed
on paper that contains at least 50% recycled fiber.
A121
Chemicals CASRN Number
Standards
Status HA Document
Health Advisories
Cancer Descriptor Status Reg. MCLG (mg/L) MCL (mg/L)
10-kg Child
One-day (mg/L) Ten-day (mg/L) RfD (mg/kg/day) DWEL (mg/L) Life-time (mg/L) mg/L at 10-4 Cancer Risk
Diisopropylmethylphosphonate 1445-75-6 - - - F ‘89 8 8 0.08 3 0.6 - D
Dimethrin 70-38-2 - - - F ‘88 10 10 0.3 10 2 - D
Dimethyl methylphosphonate 756-79-6 - - - F ‘92 2 2 0.2 7 0.1 0.7 C
Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3 - - - - - - - - - - D
Dinitrobenzene (1,3-) 99-65-0 - - - F ‘91 0.04 0.04 0.0001 0.005 0.001 - D
Dinitrotoluene (2,4-) 121-14-2 - - - F ‘08 1 1 0.002 0.1 - 0.005 L
Dinitrotoluene (2,6-) 606-20-2 - - - F ‘08 0.4 0.04 0.001 0.04 - 0.005 L
Dinitrotoluene (2,6 & 2,4)1 - - - F ‘92 - - - - - 0.005 B2
Dinoseb 88-85-7 F 0.007 0.007 F ‘88 0.3 0.3 0.001 0.035 0.007 - D
Dioxane p- 123-91-1 - - - F ‘87 4 0.4 0.03 1 0.2 0.035 L
Diphenamid 957-51-7 - - - F ‘88 0.3 0.3 0.03 1 0.2 - D
Diquat 85-00-7 F 0.02 0.02 - - - 0.005 0.02 - - E
Disulfoton 298-04-4 - - - F ‘88 0.01 0.01 0.0001 0.0035 0.0007 - E
Dithiane (1,4-) 505-29-3 - - - F ‘92 0.4 0.4 0.01 0.4 0.08 - D
Diuron 330-54-1 - - - F ‘88 1 1 0.003 0.1 - 0.2 L
Endothall 145-73-3 F 0.1 0.1 F ‘88 0.8 0.8 0.007 0.25 0.05 - N
Endrin 72-20-8 F 0.002 0.002 F ‘87 0.02 0.005 0.0003 0.01 0.002 - I
Epichlorohydrin 106-89-8 F zero TT2 F ‘87 0.1 0.1 0.002 0.07 - 0.3 B2
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 F 0.7 0.7 F ‘87 30 3 0.1 3 0.7 - D
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)3 106-93-4 F zero 0.00005 F ‘87 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.3 - 0.002 L
Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 - - - F ‘87 20 6 2 70 14 - D
Ethylene Thiourea (ETU) 96-45-7 - - - F ‘88 0.3 0.3 0.0002 0.007 - 0.06 B2
Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 - - - F ‘88 0.009 0.009 0.0001 0.0035 0.0007 - E
1 Technical grade. 2 When epichlorohydrin is used in drinking water systems, the combination (or product) of dose and monomer level shall not exceed that equivalent to an epichlorohydrin-based polymer
containing 0.01% monomer dosed at 20 mg/L. 3 1,2-dibromoethane.
A122
e1: 'StgTF4eWIfova— \
r -mai r fe nY,
ROY COOPER z `'
Govemor 1.
1 g' 1 " is;r_ "
MICHAEL S.REGAN
t.: A
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
November 14, 2019
CERTIFIED MAIL 7018 1830 00018037 0267
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Steven Drew,Water Resources Director
City of Greensboro
2602 S Elm-Eugene St
Greensboro,NC 27406-9787
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION(NOV-2019-PC-0728) &
Intent to Assess CIVIL PENALTIES
T.Z. Osborne WWTP
NPDES Permit NC0047384
Guilford County
Dear Mr. Drew:
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources has reviewed data submitted on your Discharge Monitoring
Report(DMR)dated August 2019. The data indicates that on August 7,2019,the City of Greensboro had a
discharge of 1,4 Dioxane of 957.5 ug/L. This discharge represents a violation of North Carolina water quality
standards as well as conditions of NPDES WW Permit No.NC0047384. The violations are enumerated below.
Violations of North Carolina Water Quality Standards
Based on the review of the provided DMR data,there was a violation of North Carolina regulation 15A NCAC
02B .0211(12),which states:
Oils, deleterious substances, 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
offish, aesthetic quality, or impair the watersfor any designated uses."
Violations of NPDES Permit NC0047384 Conditions
Review of the discharge data for August 7, 2019 also indicates a violation of NPDES permit NC0047384 Part II
Section E,condition(9)(a)and Part IV, Section C(2)(c)listed below.
D— J NorthNorthCarolinaSalisbuDepartmentryStreet of
1650EnvironmentalMailServi Quality I Division of Water ResourcesQServiceCenterRaleigh,North Carolina 27699-1650
NORnI CAROUNA
512
Departcant Enviraturnatal ie.of 919.707.9000
A123
City of Greensboro—NPDES Permit NC0047384
November 14,2019 t ,
Page 2 of 3
Part II, Section E(9)(a),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 dayfollowing the
occurrence orfirst knowledge ofthe occurrence of any of the following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge ofsignificant amounts of
wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping ofthe contents of a sludge digester;
the known passage ofa slug ofhazardous substance through thefacility; or any other unusual circumstances.
Part IV, Section C(2)(c),Municipal Control of Pollutants from Industrial Users
The Permittee shall investigate the source ofall 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 ofthe 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 ofthe
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days ofthe time the Permittee becomes
aware ofthe circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the discharge; the investigation
into possible sources; the period ofthe discharge, including exact dates and times; ifthe discharge has not
ceased, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken orplanned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent reoccurrence ofthe noncompliance
This Notice of Violation/Intent to Issue Civil Penalty is being issued for the noted violations of North Carolina
water quality standards (15A NCAC 2B .0100 and.0200) and the facility's NPDES Permit(NC0047384).
Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A, a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00)may be
assessed against any person who:
1) Violates any classification, standard, limitation, or management practice established pursuant to G.S. 143-
214.1, 143-214.2, or 143-215, or
2)Is required butfails to apply for or to secure a permit required by G.S. 143-215.1, or who violates orfails to
act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements ofsuch permit or any other permit or certification
issued pursuant to authority conferred by this Part, including pretreatment permits issued by local governments
and laboratory certifications.
If you wish to provide additional information regarding the noted violations,request technical assistance, or
discuss overall compliance please respond in writing within thirty 30 calendar days after receipt ofthis Notice.A
review of your response will be considered along with any additional information provided when determining
whether a civil penalty may be assessed.
A124
City of Greensboro—NPDES Permit NC0047384
Vovember 14, 2019
Page 3 of 3
Remedial actions should have already been taken to correct this problem and prevent further occurrences in the
future.The Division of Water Resources may pursue enforcement action for this and any additional violations of
State law.
If you should have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-707-3615.
ly,
C(..
7
John Hennessy
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Supervisor
cc: Lon Snider,WSRO
Jenny Graznak,WSRO
A125
LIPSptill
H.Glenn Dunn
Partner
D•919 783.2842
December 19, 2019 F•919 783.1075
[e-mail]
VIA EMAIL
John Hennessy
Compliance and Expedited Permitting Supervisor
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1650 JAN v 3 2020
RE: Notice of Violation (NOV-2019-PC-0728) & Intent to Assess Civil Penalties NCDEQIDWRINPD
T.Z Osborne WWTP
NPDES Permit NC0047384
Guilford County
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
I am writing this letter as legal counsel for the City of Greensboro to respond to the Notice of
Violation sent to the City by the Division of Water Resources(the"Division")dated November 14,2019(the
NOV), a copy of which is attached to this response. The City is of the opinion that the three incidents
described in the NOV do not constitute a violation of a water quality standard or of the City's NPDES permit
the"Permit"). Nevertheless, the City wants to state at the outset of this response that it does not want to
take an adversarial approach in this matter, but rather wishes to work together on a mutually acceptable
approach to continuing the City's ongoing efforts to reduce the 1,4 dioxane discharged to,and subsequently
from, the T.Z. Osborne WWTP (the"WWTP").
The NOV alleges there was a violation of North Carolina regulation 15A NCAC 02B .0211(12),
which states:
Oils, deleterious substances, 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."
The City believes it cannot be liable for violation of the cited narrative water quality standard
WQS")because the standard is not a Permit condition or requirement. The Division clearly contemplated
whether to limit 1,4 dioxane when the Permit was issued in 2014, but chose not to include a limit, and
instead included a "reopener" in case it wanted to add such a limit in the future. Importantly, the Division
also did not include in the Permit the narrative standard that the NOV alleges the City has violated. Because
neither a specific 1,4 dioxane limit or the narrative standard are included in the Permit,the City is"shielded"
from a violation of the Permit and/or the standard.
This "permit shield" is not merely a legal technicality that the City is invoking, but is based on
fundamental fairness and principles of due process. A numerical limit could have been included in the
Permit, but there was not adequate information at the time the Permit was issued on which to base a
reasonable scientifically based limit. Likewise, the narrative standard could have been included but was
Cv,24'.rC9t7B,RSiit' 4 ta.Cni,. RALEIGH 7 CHARLOTTE Y ROCKY MOUNT d9 SOUTHERN PINES
301 Fayetteville Street,Suite 1900, Raleigh,NC 27601 P0.Box 1801,Raleigh,NC 27602-1801 G,919 783.6400
A126
Rowel,Spruill'
John Hennessy
December 19, 2019
Page 2
not, presumably for the same reason. Consequently, the Permit provides the City no notice of what is
required for compliance regarding 1,4 dioxane, and application of the narrative standard on which the
violations are based, has in effect has been applied"after the fact".
The City believes neither of the additional two alleged violations of the Permit regarding reporting
are valid because,as explained above,there is no numerical limit in the Permit, nor is the narrative standard
that the City allegedly violated stated in the Permit. Consequently, 1,4 dioxane is unregulated by the Permit
and there is no basis for requiring compliance with the Permit conditions which involve reporting and/or
investigating unusual discharges of 1,4 dioxane from or to the WVVfP. Since there is no limit or standard
in the Permit, the City would not be on notice as to what incidents would trigger such reports and
investigations.
Although the City disagrees with the alleged violations, it shares the Division's concerns regarding
the effects of discharges of 1,4 dioxane into surface waters of the State. The City has for several years
worked proactively to identify industries that discharge 1,4 dioxane to its WVVTP and has worked with them
to achieve significant reductions. The City has already indicated that it wants to work with the Division to
develop a mutually acceptable settlement order establishing measures to be taken to further identify
sources and reduce the 1,4 dioxane discharged to and from the WVVfP and a schedule for implementing
those measures. Such a settlement order should not only continue to reduce the T.Z. Osborne WWTP's
1,4 dioxane discharge, but may assist the Division in developing technically based, reasonable and
achievable goals for 1,4 dioxane discharges.
Greensboro representatives look forward to meeting with you and other Division representatives to
discuss this response and the possibility of resolving the alleged violations by means of a Special Order by
Consent.
Very truly yours,
H. Glenn Dunn
A127
A128
A129
A130
A131
A132
A133
A134
A135
A136