NC0000752_Comments_20230117

SOUTHERN
ENV RONMENTAL
CENTER
Sergei Chernikov, Ph. D
NCDEQ / DWR / NPDES
Wastewater Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
December 12, 2022
Re: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on NPDES Permit
NC0000752, WestRock Kraft Paper, LLC Roanoke Rapids Mill WWTP
Dear Dr. Chernikov:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments on Draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit NC0000752, released by
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("Department") to WestRock Kraft
Paper, LLC ("WestRock") on November 10, 2022.1 WestRock operates the Roanoke Rapids
Mill wastewater treatment plant which discharges industrial wastewater into the Roanoke River
at volumes as high as 28 million gallons per day.2 The portion of the Roanoke River where
WestRock discharges is classified as "C waters,"3 and is protected for aquatic life propagation,
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, and secondary recreation.4
The draft permit allows WestRock to discharge wastewater likely contaminated with per -
and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Pulp and paper mills, like WestRock, are a type of
industry that use and discharge PFAS. The company did not, however, test for or disclose
whether its discharges contain PFAS in its permit application,5 and the Department did not
evaluate limits for the chemicals in the draft permit, as required by the Clean Water Act and state
laws.6 The Department has the authority and responsibility to prevent PFAS pollution, and as the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") PFAS Strategic Roadmap affirmed, "existing
NPDES authorities" can be used to "reduce discharges of PFAS at the source."7
Indeed, as a part of its Strategic Roadmap, EPA recently released guidance instructing
state agencies how to address PFAS through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
1 N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft NPDES Permit NC0000752 (Nov. 10, 2022) [hereinafter "WestRock Draft
Permit"].
2 Id. at 2.
3 Id.
4 15A N.C. Admin Code 2B.0211(1).
5 See Renewal Application, NPDES Permit NC0000752, WestRock Kraft Paper — Roanoke Rapids Mill (Sept. 28,
2021).
6 See generally WestRock Draft Permit, supra note 1.
7 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024 14 (Oct. 2021),
https://perma.cc/LK4U-RLBH.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

System ("NPDES") permitting process.' That guidance makes clear that "no permit may be
issued to the owner or operator of a facility unless the owner or operator submits a complete
permit application" including "any additional information that the permitting authority may
reasonably require to assess the discharges of the facility."9 Further, the guidance instructs state
permitting agencies to control PFAS discharges from industrial dischargers through technology -
based or water quality based effluent limits.'°
Given the volume of WestRock's discharge and the known relationship between paper
production and PFAS contamination, the Department must require WestRock to investigate
whether its discharge contains PFAS, and if it does, the Depaitiiient must impose limits to
control the release of the toxic chemical.
I. PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment.
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals manufactured and used broadly by industry
since the 1940s.11 PFAS pose a significant threat to human health at extremely low
concentrations. Two of the most studied PFAS—perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS")—are bioaccumulative and highly persistent in humans.'2
PFOA and PFOS have been shown to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney
and testicular cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis,
obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels, delayed puberty, and
lower birth weight and size.13 Because of its impacts on the immune system, PFAS can also
exacerbate the effects of Covid-19.14 Studies show that exposure to mixtures of different PFAS
can worsen these health effects."
8 Memorandum from Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Addressing PFAS Discharges
in NPDES Permits and Through the Pretreatment Program and Monitoring Programs (December 5, 2022)
(emphasis added) [hereinafter EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance], provided as Attachment 1.
9 Id. at 2.
1° Id. at 3-4.
11 Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four Perfluoroalkyl Substances, 87 Fed. Reg. 36,848, 36,849
(June 21, 2022); Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS, U.S. ENV'T
PROT. AGENCY, https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
(last visited Nov. 28, 2022).
12 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,849; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (PFOA) CASRN 335-67-1 (June 2022), at 3-4, available at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfoa-2022.pdf; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim
Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) CASRN 1763-23-1 (June 2022), at 3-4,
available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfos-2022.pdf.
13 Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENV'T. HEALTH
PERSP. 5, A 107 (May 2015); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS: Fact Sheet for
Communities, at 1-2 (June 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/drinking-
water-ha-pfas-factsheet-communities.pdf.
14 See Lauren Brown, Insight: PFAS, Covid-19, and Immune Response —Connecting the Dots, BLOOMBERG LAW
(July 13, 2020, 4:00 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/insight-pfas-covid-19-and-
immune-response-connecting-the-dots?context=article-related.
15 Emma V. Preston et al., Prenatal Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Maternal and Neonatal
Thyroid Function in the Project Viva Cohort: A Mixtures Approach, 139 ENV'T INT'L 1 (2020),
https://perma.cc/DJK3-87SN.
2

PFAS are also harmful to wildlife and the environment. The chemicals have been shown
to cause damaging effects in fish,16 amphibians,17 reptiles,18 mollusks,19 and other aquatic
invertebrates20—resulting in developmental and reproductive impacts, behavioral changes,
adverse effects to livers, disruption to endocrine systems, and weakened immune systems.21
Moreover, PFAS are extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment, can travel long
distances, and bio-accumulate in organisms.22 PFAS have been found in fish tissue, and the
primarily low-income and minority communities that rely heavily on subsistence fishing have
been found to have elevated PFAS levels in their blood.23
16 Chen et al., Perfluorobutanesulfonate Exposure Causes Durable and Transgenerational Dysbiosis of Gut
Microbiota in Marine Medaka, 5 ENv'T SCL & TECH LETTERS 731-38 (2018); Chen et al., Accumulation
of Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) and Impairment of Visual Function in the Eyes of Marine Medaka After
a LifeCycle Exposure, 201 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1-10 (2018); Du et al., Chronic Effects of Water -Borne PFOS
Exposure on Growth, Survival and Hepatotoxicity in Zebrafish: A Partial Life -Cycle Test, 74 CHEMOSPHERE 723-29
(2009); Hagenaars et al., Structure Activity Relationship Assessment of Four Perfluorinated Chemicals Using a
Prolonged Zebrafish Early Life Stage Test, 82 CHEMOSPHERE 764-72 (2011); Huang et al., Toxicity, Uptake
Kinetics and Behavior Assessment in Zebrafish Embryos Following Exposure
to Perfluorooctanesulphonicacid (PFOS), 98 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 139-47 (2010); Jantzen et al., PFOS, PFNA,
and PFOA Sub -Lethal Exposure to Embryonic Zebrafish Have Different Toxicity Profiles in terms of
Morphometrics, Behavior and Gene Expression, 175 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 160-70 (2016); Liu et al., The Thyroid -
Disrupting Effects of Long -Term Perfluorononanoate Exposure on Zebrafish (Danio rerio),
20 ECOTOxICOLOGY 47-55 (2011); Chen et al., Multigenerational Disruption of the Thyroid Endocrine System in
Marine Medaka after a Life -Cycle Exposure to Perfluorobutanesulfonate, 52 ENv'T SCL & TECH. 4432-39
(2018); Rotondo et al., Environmental Doses of Perfluorooctanoic Acid Change the Expression of Genes in Target
Tissues of Common Carp, 37 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 942-48 (2018).
17 Ankley et al., Partial Life -Cycle Toxicity and Bioconcentration Modeling of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in the
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens), 23 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2745 (2004); Cheng et al., Thyroid
Disruption Effects of Environmental Level Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS) in Xenopus Laevis,
20 ECOTOXICOLOGY 2069-78 (2011); Lou et al., Effects
of Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Perfluorobutanesulfonate on the Growth and Sexual Development of
Xenopus Laevis, 22 ECOTOXICOLOGY 1133-44 (2013).
18 Guillette et al., Blood Concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Are Associated with Autoimmune-
like Effects in American Alligators From Wilmington, North Carolina, Front. Toxicol. 4:1010185 (Oct. 20, 20221),
available at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ftox.2022.1010185/full.
19 Liu et al., Oxidative Toxicity of Perfluorinated Chemicals in Green Mussel and Bioaccumulation Factor
Dependent Quantitative Structure -Activity Relationship, 33 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2323-32 (2014); Liu et
al., Immunotoxicity in Green Mussels under Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Exposure: Reversible Response and
Response Model Development, 37 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 1138-45 (2018).
20 Houde et al., Endocrine -Disruption Potential of Perfluoroethylcyclohexane Su fonate (PFECHS) in Chronically
Exposed Daphnia Magna, 218 ENV'T POLLUTION 950-56 (2016); Liang et al., Effects of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
on Immobilization, Heartbeat, Reproductive and Biochemical Performance of Daphnia Magna,
168 CHEMOSPHERE 1613-18 (2017); Ji et al., Oxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates (Daphnia Magna and Moina Macrocopa) and Fish (Oryzias Latipes), 27 ENV'T
TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2159 (2008); MacDonald et al., Toxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid to Chironomus Tentans, 23 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2116 (2004).
21 See supra notes 13-17.
22What are PFAS?, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-
effects/overview.html (last visited Oct. 19, 2022); see also Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 11.
23 Patricia A. Fair et al., Perfluoralkyl Substances (PFASs) in Edible Fish Species from Charleston Harbor and
Tributaries, South Carolina, United States: Exposure and Risk Assessment, 171 ENV'T. RES. 266 (April
2019); Chloe Johnson, Industrial chemicals in Charleston Harbor taint fish — and those who eat them, POST &
3

The Roanoke River Basin hosts numerous species of wildlife, including endangered
species like the red -cockaded woodpecker, shortnose sturgeon, and James spinymusse1.24 In
addition, nine species of freshwater mussels and three species of fish that are listed as threatened
or endangered by the state are present in the basin.25 Upper portions of the Roanoke River are
historic spawning areas for the Atlantic sturgeon, a federally listed endangered species, and the
lower portion, downstream of WestRock's discharge serves an important spawning and nursery
area for anadromous fish (or fish that spend time in the ocean, but spawn in freshwater).26 The
Department has determined that "[a]nadromous fishes in the Roanoke River basin form the basis
for recreational and commercial fisheries that are important on a local, state and coast -wide
basis."27
II. The Department must require WestRock to investigate and report any possible
PFAS in its discharge and assess appropriate limits if present.
The pulp and paper industry is a known consumer of PFAS, which the industry uses to
improve the water-resistant properties in paper products.28 PFAS can be added to the pulp to
improve the internal water-resistant properties of paper products,29 or added externally as a
surface coating for packaging products.30 In addition to incorporation into manufactured
products, fluoropolymers are used on equipment and production processes for their non-
corrosive properties, from pulp mills and recovery operations to the paper machines
COURIER (June 4, 2022), https://www.postandcourier.com/environment/industrial-chemicals-in-charleston-harbor-
taint-fi sh-and-those-who-eat-them/articleb2b 14506-bc 19-11 ec-83 e5-7f2 a8322d624.html.
24 Office of Env't Educ. and Pub. Affair, N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Roanoke River Basin 2, (2018), available at
https://files.nc. gov/degee/documents/files/roanoke-river-basin.pdf.
25 Id. at 2-3.
26 N.C. Dep't of Env't Nat. Res., Chapter 2: Roanoke River Basin Overview, Roanoke River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan 27 (2001), available at https://deq.nc.gov/media/4319/download.
27 Id.
28 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Multi -Industry Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Study Report — 2021
Preliminary Report 7-1 (Sept. 2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/multi-
industry-pfas-study_preliminary-2021-report_508_2021.09.08.pdf [hereinafter "PFAS Industry Report"].
29 See Xenia Trier et al., PFAS in Paper and Board for Food Contact: Options for Risk Management of Poly -and
Perfluorinated Substances, (Nordic Council of Ministers 2018); Gregory Glenn et al., Per -and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances and their Alternatives in Paper Food Packaging, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Sci. and Food Safety
(2021) ("PFAS chemicals tend to coat the surfaces of fibers, including fibers located internally when internal sizing
containing PFAS is used such as with molded pulp paper packaging.").
30 Andrew B. Lindstrom, Mark J. Strynar, and E. Laurence Libelo, Polyfluorinated Compounds: Past, Present, and
Future, 45 Env't. Sci. & Tech. 7954 (2011).
4

themselves.31 It is likely, therefore, that the wastewater being discharged into the Roanoke River
contains PFAS.32
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant, including PFAS, without a
NPDES permit.33 The discharge of a specific pollutant (or group of pollutants) cannot be
permitted if it is not disclosed in a NPDES permit application. Therefore, WestRock is required
to disclose any discharges of PFAS in its permit application.
If a NPDES permit applicant does not adequately disclose its release of a pollutant, the
applicant does not have approval to discharge the pollutant.34 Disclosure is considered adequate
when the applicant provides enough information for a permitting agency to "be[] able to judge
whether the discharge of a particular pollutant constitutes a significant threat to the
environment."35 To meet this burden, an applicant must include all relevant information,
including the concentration, volume, and frequency of the discharge.36 The Clean Water Act
places the burden of disclosure on the permit applicant because they are in the best position to
know what is in their discharge.37
The EPA has stressed the need for disclosure of pollutants during the permitting process:
[D]ischargers have a duty to be aware of any significant pollutant levels in their
discharge. [...] Most important, [the disclosure requirements] provide the
information which the permit writers need to determine what pollutants are likely
to be discharged in significant amounts and to set appropriate permit limits. [...]
[P]ermit writers need to know what pollutants are present in an effluent to
31 See Leon Magdzinski, Fluoropolymer Use in the Pulp and Paper Industry, CORROSION 99 (1999) (noting
"fluoropolymer have become ubiquitous in the pulp and paper industry"); Rainer Lohmann et al., Are
Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS?, 54
Env't. Sci. & Tech. 12,820 (2020).
32 We are aware that WestRock was one of the companies that participated in EPA's research for the preliminary
industry report released in September 2021. In that report, WestRock told EPA that the company "no longer
intentionally uses PFAS..." PFAS Industry Report, supra note 28 at 7-4 (emphasis added). Simply because the
company has reported its shift away from PFAS does not mean that PFAS are not present in this facility's discharge,
however, and more information is required before a decision is made on this permit.
33 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
34 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 (EPA) (1998); Piney Run Pres. Ass 'n v. Cty. Comm'rs of Carroll Cty.,
Maryland, 268 F.3d. 255 (4th Cir. 2001); Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d
560 (4th Cir. 2014).
35 Piney Run, 268 F.3d at 268 ("Because the permitting scheme is dependent on the permitting authority being able
to judge whether the discharge of a particular pollutant constitutes a significant threat to the environment, discharges
not within the reasonable contemplation of the permitting authority during the permit application process, whether
spills or otherwise, do not come within the protection of the permit shield.").
36 See In re Ketchikan Pulp Co., 7 E.A.D. 605 ("In explaining the provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 122.53(d)(7)(iii), which
required dischargers to submit quantitative data relating to certain conventional and nonconventional pollutants that
dischargers know or have reason to believe are present in their effluent, the [EPA] stated: `permit writers need to
know what pollutants are present in an effluent to determine appropriate limits in the absence of effluent
guidelines.'").
37 S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards, 758 F.3d at 566 ("The statute and regulations purposefully place the burden
of disclosure on the permit applicant.").
5

determine approval permit limits in the absence of applicable effluent
guidelines.38
Importantly, if WestRock were to discharge PFAS after failing to disclose such
chemical(s) in its NPDES permit application, it would violate the Clean Water Act and would
not be covered by a permit shield. For example, the Tennessee Depaitiiient of Environment and
Conservation has made clear in at least one NPDES permit that undisclosed discharges of PFAS
are unpermitted:
The facility's application did not report any forms of PFAS as chemicals that
there was the potential to discharge. The permittee has no permit shield for the
discharge of PFAS compounds because no such chemicals were disclosed in the
permit application or otherwise...39
EPA has recently affirmed that failing to disclose PFAS would result in an incomplete permit
application and thus not authorize the facility to discharge PFAS.4°
The Department must require WestRock to disclose any discharge of PFAS in its permit
application before moving forward with the draft NPDES permit. The Department should direct
WestRock to analyze its effluent using EPA recommended draft method 1633 and draft method
1621 and disclose any PFAS found through this sampling.41 Draft method 1633 tests for 40
PFAS compounds in a variety of media, while draft method 1621 is a screening method that can
identify the presence of thousands of known PFAS but does not identify the specific PFAS that
are present.42 DEQ must do require disclosure to ensure regulated parties know of their
obligations with respect to PFAS and are aware of the potential liability if they fail to do so.
If WestRock is discharging PFAS, the Department must consider appropriate permit
limits for the renewal NPDES permit. The Clean Water Act requires permitting agencies to, at
the very least, incorporate technology -based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.43
EPA has affirmed this technology -based minimum applies to discharges of PFAS.44 Effective
treatment technologies for PFAS are available. Granular activated carbon is a cost effective and
efficient technology that is capable of reducing PFAS concentrations to virtually nondetectable
levels. A granular activated carbon treatment system at the Chemours' facility in Fayetteville,
North Carolina, for example, has reduced PFAS concentrations as high as 345,000 ppt from a
38 Consolidated Permit Application Forms for EPA Programs, 45 Fed. Reg. 33,526-31 (May 19, 1980).
39 TDEC, NPDES Permit NO. TN0002330 (2020), Holliston Holdings, LLC, Addendum to Rationale,
https://perma.cc/4RKY-PKFG (emphasis added).
40 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 8 at 2.
41 EPA recommends the use these methods for NPDES permits. See id. at 2 (recommending monitoring be
conducted under draft method 1633 in the absence of a final published analytical method for PFAS); see also
Memorandum from Radhika Fox, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency to Water Division Directors EPA Regions 1-10,
Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where EPA in the Pretreatment
Control Authority (Apr. 28, 2022), https://perma.cc/SNMB-ME3L.
42 CWA Analytical Methods for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS), U.S. ENV'T PROT. AGENCY,
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods/cwa-analytical-methods-and-polyfluorinated-alkyl-substances-pfas (last visited
Nov. 28, 2022).
43 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311.
44 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 8 at 3.
6

creek contaminated by groundwater beneath the facility to nearly nondetectable concentrations.45
The Department must consider the feasibility of WestRock installing this technology or similarly
effective technologies.
If these limits are not enough to ensure compliance with water quality standards, then
water quality -based effluent limits must be included.46 PFAS are known to harm human health
and aquatic life, and their discharge threatens to violate multiple water quality standards,
including the state toxic substances standard.47 The state toxic substances standard mandates that
"[t]he concentration of toxic substances shall not result in chronic toxicity to aquatic life," and
defines chronic toxicity as "[a]ny levels in excess of the chronic value for aquatic life."48 The
Department itself has stated in its lawsuit against Chemours that PFAS "meet the definition of
`toxic substance' under North Carolina rules.49 In order to comply with the Clean Water Act,
therefore, if WestRock discharges PFAS, the Department must limit its discharge so that it will
not "cause, or contribute" to concentrations of PFAS in excess of levels protective of human
health or aquatic life.
III. Conclusion
In summary, given the volume of WestRock's flow and its industry sector, the
Department must require the company to investigate and disclose any discharge of PFAS in a
permit application. If present, the Department must evaluate the discharge and set appropriate
limits for PFAS in this NPDES permit. Thank you for considering these comments. Please
contact me at 919-967-1450 or [e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this
letter or the content herein.
Sincerely,
Hannah M. Nelson
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
45 See Parsons, Engineering Report — Old Outfall 002 GAC Pilot Study Results (Sept. 2019), available at
https://www.chemours.com/j a/-/media/files/corporate/12e-old-outfall-2-gac-pilot-report-2019-09-
30.pdf?rev=6e1242091 aa846f888afa895eff80e2e&hash=040CAA7522E3D64B9E5445ED6F96B0FB; see also
Chemours Outfall 003, NPDES No. NC0089915 Discharge Monitoring Reports (2020-2022), available at
https://perma.cc/8YND-XT5M.
46 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) (stating that DWR must "reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water
quality standards and regulations."); see 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(c) (requiring that permit limits be established as
necessary to comply with water quality standards); see also EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 8 at 3-4.
47 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0208(a).
48 Id. 2B.0208(a)(1).
49 Amended Complaint, North Carolina v. The Chemours Company FC, 17 CVS 580 (N.C. Super. 2018), at ¶ 152
(stating that "the process wastewater from [Chemours'] Fluoromonomers/Nafion® Membrane Manufacturing Area
contains and has contained substances or combinations of substances which meet the definition of "toxic substance"
set forth in 15A N.C.A.C. 2B .0202," referring to GenX and other PFAS).
7

ATTACHMENT 1

\-ceo srq
<<‘2r�C PROS G'
MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
December 5, 2022
OFFICE OF WATER
SUBJECT: Addressing PFAS Discharges in NPDES Permits and Through the Pretreatment Program
and Monitoring Programs
FROM: Radhika Fox
Assistant Administrator
TO: EPA Regional Water Division Directors, Regions 1-10
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is an important tool
established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to help address water pollution by regulating point sources
that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. Collectively, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and states issue thousands of permits annually, establishing important monitoring and
pollution reduction requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), industrial facilities,
and stormwater discharges nationwide. The NPDES program interfaces with many pathways by which
per -and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) travel and are released into the environment, and ultimately
impact water quality and the health of people and ecosystems. Consistent with the Agency's
commitments in the October 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024
(PFAS Strategic Roadmap), EPA will work in cooperation with our state -authorized permitting
authorities to leverage the NPDES program to restrict the discharge of PFAS at their sources. In addition
to reducing PFAS discharges, this program will enable EPA and the states to obtain comprehensive
information on the sources and quantities of PFAS discharges, which can be used to inform appropriate
next steps to limit the discharges of PFAS.
This memorandum provides EPA's guidance to states and updates the April 28, 2022 guidance' to EPA
Regions for addressing PFAS discharges when they are authorized to administer the NPDES permitting
program and/or pretreatment program. These recommendations reflect the Agency's commitments in the
PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which directs the Office of Water to leverage NPDES permits to reduce
PFAS discharges to waterways "at the source and obtain more comprehensive information through
monitoring on the sources of PFAS and quantity of PFAS discharged by these sources." While the
Office of Water works to revise Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) and develop water quality
criteria to support technology -based and water quality -based effluent limits for PFAS in NPDES
permits, this memorandum describes steps permit writers can implement under existing authorities to
reduce the discharge of PFAS.
Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where EPA is the Pretreatment Control
Authority, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/npdesj fas-memo.pdf.

This memorandum also provides EPA's guidance for addressing sewage sludge PFAS contamination
more rapidly than possible with monitoring based solely on NPDES permit renewals. States may choose
to monitor the levels of PFAS in sewage sludge across POTWs and then consider mechanisms under
pretreatment program authorities to prevent the introduction of PFAS to POTWs based on the
monitoring results.
EPA recommends that the following array of NPDES and pretreatment provisions and monitoring
programs be implemented by authorized states and POTWs, as appropriate, to the fullest extent available
under state and local law. NPDES and pretreatment provisions may be included when issuing a permit
or by modifying an existing permit pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62.
A. Recommendations for Applicable Industrial Direct Dischargers
1. Applicability: Industry categories known or suspected to discharge PFAS as identified on page 14
of the PFAS Strategic Roadmap include: organic chemicals, plastics & synthetic fibers (OCPSF);
metal finishing; electroplating; electric and electronic components; landfills; pulp, paper &
paperboard; leather tanning & finishing; plastics molding & forming; textile mills; paint formulating,
and airports. This is not an exhaustive list and additional industries may also discharge PFAS. For
example, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities may receive wastes from the
aforementioned industries and should be considered for monitoring. There may also be categories of
dischargers that do not meet the applicability criteria of any existing ELG; for instance, remediation
sites, chemical manufacturing not covered by OCPSF, and military bases.
EPA notes that no permit may be issued to the owner or operator of a facility unless the owner or
operator submits a complete permit application in accordance with applicable regulations, and
applicants must provide any additional information that the permitting authority may reasonably
require to assess the discharges of the facility (40 CFR 122.21(e), (g)(13)).2 The applicant may be
required to submit additional information under CWA Section 308 or under a similar provision of
state law.
2. Effluent -and wastewater residuals monitoring: In the absence of a final 40 CFR Part 136 method,
EPA recommends using CWA wastewater draft analytical method 1633 (see 40 CFR
122.21(e)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv)(B)). EPA also recommends that monitoring include
each of the 40 PFAS parameters detectable by draft method 1633 and be conducted at least quarterly
to ensure that there are adequate data to assess the presence and concentration of PFAS in
discharges. All PFAS monitoring data must be reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
(see 40 CFR 122.41(1)(4)(i)). The draft Adsorbable Organic Fluorine CWA wastewater method 1621
can be used in conjunction with draft method 1633, if appropriate. Certain industrial processes may
generate PFAS-contaminated solid waste or air emissions not covered by NPDES permitting and
permitting agencies should coordinate with appropriate state authorities on proper containment and
disposal to avoid cross -media contamination. EPA's draft analytical method 1633 may be
appropriate to assess the amount and types of PFAS for some of these wastestreams.3
2 For more, see NPDES Permit Writer's Manual Section 4.5.1.
3 See https://www.epa.gov/water-research/pfas-analytical-methods-development-and-sampling-research for a list of EPA -
approved methods for other media.
2

3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for discharges of PFAS, including product substitution,
reduction, or elimination of PFAS, as detected by draft method 1633: Pursuant to 40 CFR
122.44(k)(4), EPA recommends that NPDES permits for facilities incorporate the following
conditions when the practices are "reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and standards
or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA."4
a. BMP conditions based on pollution prevention/source reduction opportunities, which may
include:
i. Product elimination or substitution when a reasonable alternative to using PFAS is available
in the industrial process.
ii. Accidental discharge minimization by optimizing operations and good housekeeping
practices.
iii. Equipment decontamination or replacement (such as in metal finishing facilities) where
PFAS products have historically been used to prevent discharge of legacy PFAS following
the implementation of product substitution.
b. Example BMP permit special condition language:
i. PFAS pollution prevention/source reduction evaluation: Within 6 months of the effective
date of the permit, the facility shall provide an evaluation of whether the facility uses or has
historically used any products containing PFAS, whether use of those products or legacy
contamination reasonably can be reduced or eliminated, and a plan to implement those steps.
ii. Reduction or Elimination: Within 12 months of the effective date of the permit, the facility
shall implement the plan in accordance with the PFAS pollution prevention/source reduction
evaluation.
iii. Annual Report: An annual status report shall be developed which includes a list of potential
PFAS sources, summary of actions taken to reduce or eliminate PFAS, any applicable source
monitoring results, any applicable effluent results for the previous year, and any relevant
adjustments to the plan, based on the findings.
iv. Reporting: When EPA's electronic reporting tool for DMRs (called "NetDMR") allows for the
permittee to submit the pollution prevention/source reduction evaluation and the annual
report, the example permit language can read, "The pollution prevention/source reduction
evaluation and annual report shall be submitted to EPA via EPA's electronic reporting tool
for DMRs (called "NetDMR").
4. BMPs to address PFAS-containing firefighting foams for stormwater permits: Pursuant to
122.44(k)(2), where appropriate, EPA recommends that NPDES stormwater permits include BMPs
to address Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) used for firefighting, such as the following:5
a. Prohibiting the use of AFFFs other than for actual firefighting.
b. Eliminating PFOS and PFOA -containing AFFFs.
c. Requiring immediate clean-up in all situations where AFFFs have been used, including
diversions and other measures that prevent discharges via storm sewer systems.
5. Permit Limits: As specified in 40 CFR 125.3, technology -based treatment requirements under
CWA Section 301(b) represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in NPDES
permits. Site -specific technology -based effluent limits (TBELs) for PFAS discharges developed on a
best professional judgment (BPJ) basis may be appropriate for facilities for which there are no
applicable effluent guidelines (see 40 CFR 122.44(a), 125.3). Also, NPDES permits must include
water quality -based effluent limits (WQBELs) as derived from state water quality standards, in
4 For more on BMPs, see NPDES Permit Writer's Manual Section 9.1 and EPA Guidance Manual for Developing Best
Management Practices.
5 Naval Air Station Whidbey Island MS4 permit incorporates these provisions.
3

addition to TBELs developed on a BPJ basis, if necessary to achieve water quality standards,
including state narrative criteria for water quality (CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C); 40 CFR 122.22(d)).
If a state has established a numeric criterion or a numeric translation of an existing narrative water
quality standard for PFAS parameters, the permit writer should apply that numeric criterion or
narrative interpretation in permitting decisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(iii) and
122.44(d)(1)(vi)(A), respectively.
B. Recommendations for Publicly Owned Treatment Works
1. Applicability: All POTWs, including POTWs that do not receive industrial discharges, and
industrial users (IUs) in the industrial categories above.
2. Effluent, influent, and biosolids monitoring: In the absence of a final 40 CFR Part 136 method,
EPA recommends using CWA wastewater draft analytical method 1633 (see 40 CFR
122.21(e)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv)(B)). EPA also recommends that monitoring include
each of the 40 PFAS parameters detectable by draft method 1633 and be conducted at least quarterly
to ensure that there are adequate data to assess the presence and concentration of PFAS in
discharges. All PFAS monitoring data must be reported on DMRs (see 40 CFR 122.41(1)(4)(i)). The
draft Adsorbable Organic Fluorine CWA wastewater method 1621 can be used in conjunction with
draft method 1633, if appropriate.
3. Pretreatment program activities:
a. Update IU Inventory: Permits to POTWs should contain requirements to identify and locate all
possible IUs that might be subject to the pretreatment program and identify the character and
volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW by the IUs (see 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)). As EPA
regulations require, this information shall be provided to the pretreatment control authority (see
40 CFR 122.44(j) and 40 CFR 403.8(0(6)) within one year. The IU inventory should be revised,
as necessary, to include all IUs in industry categories expected or suspected of PFAS discharges
listed above (see 40 CFR 403.12(i)).6
b. Utilize BMPs and pollution prevention to address PFAS discharges to POTWs. EPA
recommends that POTWs:
i. Update IU permits/control mechanisms to require quarterly monitoring. These IUs should be
input into the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with appropriate linkage to
their respective receiving POTWs. POTWs and states may also use their available authorities
to conduct quarterly monitoring of the IUs (see 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2), 403.10(e) and (f)(2)).
ii. Where authority exists, develop IU BMPs or local limits. 40 CFR 403.5(c)(4) authorizes
POTWs to develop local limits in the form of BMPs. Such BMPs could be like those for
industrial direct discharges described in A.3 above.
iii. In the absence of local limits and POTW legal authority to issue IU control mechanisms, state
pretreatment coordinators are encouraged to work with the POTWs to encourage pollution
prevention, product substitution, and good housekeeping practices to make meaningful
reductions in PFAS introduced to POTWs.
6 ELG categories of airport deicing, landfills, textile mills, and plastics molding and forming do not have categorical
pretreatment standards, and therefore small -volume indirect dischargers in those categories would not ordinarily be
considered Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and may not be captured on an existing IU inventory. IUs under the Paint
Formulating category are only subject to Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS), and existing sources may need to
be inventoried.
4

C. Recommended Biosolids Assessment
1. Where appropriate, states may work with their POTWs to reduce the amount of PFAS
chemicals in biosolids, in addition to the NPDES recommendations in Section B above,
following these general steps:7
a. EPA recommends using draft method 1633 to analyze biosolids at POTWs for the presence of 40
PFAS chemicals.$
b. Where monitoring and IU inventory per section B.2 and B.3.a above indicate the presence of
PFAS in biosolids from industrial sources, EPA recommends actions in B.3.b to reduce PFAS
discharges from IUs.
c. EPA recommends validating PFAS reductions with regular monitoring of biosolids. States may
also use their available authorities to conduct quarterly monitoring of the POTWs (see 40 CFR
403.10(f)(2)).
D. Recommended Public Notice for Draft Permits with PFAS-Specific Conditions
1. In addition to the requirements for public notice described in 40 CFR 124.10, EPA
recommends that NPDES permitting authorities provide notification to potentially affected
downstream public water systems (PWS) of draft permits with PFAS-specific monitoring,
BMPs, or other conditions:
a. Public notice of the draft permit would be provided to potentially affected PWS with intakes
located downstream of the NPDES discharge.
b. NPDES permit writers are encouraged to collaborate with their drinking water program
counterparts to determine on a site -specific basis which PWS to notify.
i. EPA's Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source Waters (DWMAPS) tool may
be helpful as a screening tool to identify potentially affected PWS to notify.
c. EPA will provide instructions on how to search for facility -specific discharge monitoring data
in EPA's publicly available search tools.
7 EPA is currently evaluating the potential risk of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids and supporting studies and activities to
evaluate the presence of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. This recommendation is not meant to supersede the PFOA and PFOS
risk assessment or supporting activities. The conclusions of the risk assessment and supporting studies may indicate that
regulatory actions or more stringent requirements are necessary to protect human health and the environment.
B While water quality monitoring activities (including monitoring of PFAS associated with NPDES permit or pretreatment
requirements) at POTWs are generally not eligible for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), monitoring for the
specific purpose of project development (planning, design, and construction) is eligible. Monitoring in this capacity, and
within a reasonable timeframe, can be integral to the identification of the best solutions (through an alternatives analysis) for
addressing emerging contaminants and characterizing discharge and point of disposal (e.g., land application of biosolids).
Though ideally the planning and monitoring for project development would result in a CWSRF-eligible capital project, in
some instances, the planning could lead to outcomes other than capital projects to address the emerging contaminants.
5