Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0026123_Report_20230821ROY COOPER Governor ELIZABETH S. BISER Secretary RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR. Director NORTH CAROLINA Environmental Quality August 17, 2023 MEMORANDUM To: Richard E. Rogers Director, Division of Water Resources From: Ramesh Ravella, Supervisor, Animal Feeding Operations Branch Water Quality Permitting Section, Division of Water Resources Subject: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations City of Asheboro — Asheboro Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit Number NCO026123 Randolph County A Public Hearing was held on May 23, 2023, at the Corporate Training Center at the Randolph Community College, 413 Industrial Park Avenue, Asheboro, NC 27205. The public hearing was held under the authority of 15A NCAC 02H .0111. The purpose of this public hearing was to receive comments on the Division of Water Resources' (DWR) draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal for the City of Asheboro's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The current permit is expired but administratively extended until a permitting decision is made on the renewal. In addition to listening to oral comments at the public hearing, DWR staff and the Hearing Officer reviewed all written comments received through the end of the comment period. Following the closing of the comment period, DWR staff worked with the hearing officer to consider and deliberate over the comments and then to develop the recommendations presented in this report. In preparation of this report, the hearing officer considered all public comments, the public record, discussions with DWR staff related to the rules, and their review of the application for the permit renewal. The report has been prepared using the following outline: I. History/ Background II. Public Hearing Summary III. General Comments IV. Recommendations V. Summary VI. Appendices I. History / Background On March 21, 2016, the City of Asheboro (hereafter City) applied for an NPDES permit renewal for its Asheboro WWTP (Appendix A). Upon technical review of the application and supporting materials, DWR prepared an initial draft permit, which, pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0109(2), was submitted for public comment on May 9, 2018 (Appendix B). The initial draft permit included modifications to discharge limits, monitoring requirements for existing water quality parameters, and the addition of limitations and monitoring requirements for the chemical 1,4-Dioxane based on the facility's discharge into a Class C waterbody, Hasketts Creek. In NCDWR 2016: 1,4-Dioxane in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Initial Screening and Source Identification Study, DWR had found concentrations of 1,4-dioxane amongst the highest observed at Study Site NCSU24 in Hasketts Creek, just downstream of the Asheboro WWTP discharge. During the public comment period, comments were received from multiple municipalities requesting further consideration of 1,4-dioxane limits for the protection of downstream water supply water uses. Per Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) November 2017 Technical Fact Sheet-1,4-Dioxane, 1,4-dioxane is completely miscible in water and resistant to biodegradation. As such, the mass loading of the chemical identified in the facility's discharge is expected to persist downstream to the nearest drinking water intake. Multiple drinking water utilities exist downstream of the Asheboro WWTP's discharge, and as such, protection of the downstream water supply uses needs to be considered. Allowable discharge concentrations were calculated for both the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek and for the nearest downstream water supply (WS-V) boundary, and the more restrictive concentration was selected for protection of downstream uses. The nearest downstream water supply (WS-V) boundary is located in the Deep River, 1.0 mile upstream of Tysons Creek and 43.5 miles downstream of the Asheboro WWTP discharge. The water supply boundary is for the Deep River (Gulf-Goldston) water supply watershed. Each allowable discharge concentration was calculated considering the applicable receiving stream's Average Annual Flow (AAF), appropriate Instream Target Value (ITV) and the facility's permitted design flow. For the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek, an ITV of 80 µg/L for non -water supply waters at an AAF of 12 cfs and a permitted design flow of 9.0 MGD (13.95 cfs) was considered. This calculation yielded a chronic allowable discharge concentration of 149 µg/L. When considering the downstream WS-V waters, a 1x10-6 risk level ITV of 0.35 µg/L for water supply waters at an AAF of 846 cfs (calculation estimated by USGS for WS-V boundary of Gulf-Goldston WS watershed) and a permitted design flow of 9.0 MGD (13.95 cfs) was considered. This calculation yielded a chronic allowable concentration of 21.58 µg/L. The discharge determination based on direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek is insufficiently protective of downstream water supply uses. As such, the chronic allowable discharge concentration of 21.58 µg/L has been used in determination of permitting actions. Based on a review of the effluent data, the Asheboro WWTP demonstrates a reasonable potential to exceed the allowable discharge concentration, resulting in a limit being incorporated into the draft permit. Recognizing that 1,4-Dioxane is an emerging contaminant and industrial users are in the process of adjusting to its impact and use in materials, a phased implementation compliance schedule has been included in the permit. In Asheboro WWTP's case, the future phase 1,4-Dioxane target must not cause violation of the ITV for 1,4-Dioxane at the water supply boundary. Page 2 of 13 Considering the existing effluent concentrations experienced at the facility, the first phased limit was calculated to be the 50th percentile value of the effluent data submitted from January 2018 through September 2022, which was 55.7 µg/L. This initial phased limit was calculated after removing detection values identified as outliers (Z score > 3 or < -3). The second phase is set at the EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory of 35 µg/L for 1,4-dioxane. The third and final phased limitation set the allowable discharge concentration based on the ITV for 1,4-Dioxane calculated at the water supply boundary which came out to 21.58 µg/L. Daily maximum limitations have been calculated for each phase from the chronic monthly average limitations using EPA guidance. Derivation of the maximum daily limit is based on EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) recommendations. According to the TSD, developing final permit limits for pollutants affecting human health is somewhat different from setting limits for other pollutants because the exposure period is generally longer than 1 month. Therefore, the EPA -recommended approach for setting water quality -based limits for human health protection with statistical procedures is as follows: •Set the Average Monthly Limit (AML) equal to the Wasteload Allocation (to meet the instream target value of 0.35 µg/L) • Calculate the Maximum Daily Limit (MDL) based on effluent variability and the number of samples per month using the multipliers provided in TSD Table 5-3. This approach ensures that the instream criteria will be met over the long-term and provides a defensible method for calculating an MDL. The daily maximum final limit was developed using the recommended approach in TSD Section 5.4.4, for human health protection. Input variables for the multiplier table consulted (TSD Table 5-3) included: • A coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.8 based on the most recent 58 data points (July 2021— September 2022) and after removing Z-score-identified outlier values, • AML exceedance probability of 95th percentile, • MDL exceedance probability of 99th percentile, • A weekly sampling frequency (n = 4/month). The table yielded a multiplier of 2.29, which was applied to the average monthly limits of 55.7 µg/L, 35.0 µg/L, and 21.58 µg/L to obtain the maximum daily limits of 127.6 µg/L, 80.2 µg/L, and 49.4 µg/L, respectively. Based on this consideration of downstream drinking water uses, a second draft permit was prepared to incorporate the revised 1,4-dioxane requirements. In addition to the 1,4-dioxane requirements, the following changes were proposed: • Reduced BOD, Ammonia, TSS and fecal coliform monitoring • Removal of total mercury limits • Removal of total chromium limits • Removal of total zinc monitoring • Revised Ammonia limits Page 3 of 13 • Total Selenium monitoring • Bromodichloromethane limit • Total silver limits and compliance schedule • Quarterly PFAS monitoring (with 6-month delay after EPA -approved method is published) To accompany the revised draft permit, DWR prepared a Fact Sheet (Appendix D) to explain permit conditions and proposed changes to permit conditions in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0108. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0109(2), DWR provided a public notice of the proposed action to issue the permit and accepted public comment on the draft permit from December 6, 2022, until January 27, 2023. A total of six comment sets were received during this period and two of those comments requested a public hearing. All comments can be found in Appendix E. Based on public input, and in accordance with General Statute 143-215.1(c)(3), the Director of DWR determined that a public hearing was warranted. In accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0109(b), notice of the public hearing was published in The Courier -Tribune (newspaper with circulation in Randolph County) on April 20, 2023 (Appendix F). This notice was transmitted electronically via DWR's e-mail listsery and posted to DWR's Website.1 In addition, DWR issued a press release to provide information about the scheduled public hearing and sent copies of the press release via e-mailed to requestors. The public hearing was held on May 23, 2023, as described below. After the hearing, the public comment period remained open until 5 p.m. on May 24, 2023. II. Public Hearing A public hearing was held on May 23, 2023, at the Corporate Training Center at the Randolph Community College, 413 Industrial Park Avenue, Asheboro, NC 27205. The purpose of the hearing was for DWR to receive public comments and additional information relevant to the Asheboro WWTP draft NPDES permit and DWR's NPDES permit renewal decision for the City of Asheboro — Asheboro WWTP. Seventeen people attended the public hearing (Appendix G), including nine stakeholders and eight staff members from the Department of Environmental Quality. Attendees and speakers included representatives of Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), Haw River Assembly (HRA), Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC), the City of Asheboro, the City of Greensboro, Cranfill Sumner, LLP, Brooks Pierce Law Firm, and Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority. The hearing officer provided opening remarks and Nick Coco of DWR presented background information on the NPDES permitting process and the proposed draft permit. Three individuals registered in advance of the hearing to provide oral comments. Speakers were given six minutes each for oral remarks. Of the three individuals who spoke, all expressed concerns about the permit as drafted or had specific requests regarding the draft permit. The list of attendees including speakers is in Appendix G. A link to the public hearing recording is attached to this report (Appendix H). ' https://www.deq.nc.gov/news/events/notice-intent-issue-npdes-wastewater-permit-nc0026123-0 Page 4 of 13 DWR received six written comments during the second public comment period, including two comments after the public hearing (Appendices I and J). All of these comments expressed concerns with the permit as drafted and some comments made specific requests. A summary of the oral and written comments, along with responses that have a direct impact on the permit decision making process, are included below in Section III. III. Public Comments and Division Responses The following is a summary of the comments received during the May 23, 2023 public hearing and during the public comment period. Comments were received from the following entities: • Cranfill Sumner, LLP on behalf of the City of Reidsville, • The City of Asheboro, • Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), • Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC), • Brooks Pierce on behalf of the Cities of Greensboro and Asheboro, and • Southern Environmental Law Center The discussion below organizes and summarizes the public comments received by topic and provides the Division's response. Both the written and oral comments were included in this section. All comments received for both comment periods are included in Appendix K. Ammonia Comments Comment: Site -Specific Ammonia Limits One commenter requested site -specific ammonia limitations be calculated to see if a different result is generated. Response: Site -specific ammonia calculations have been conducted per Permittee request and have been found to be consistent with the conclusions applied to the draft permit. As such, no changes have been proposed from the draft ammonia requirements. Silver Comments Comment: Silver Water Effect -Ratio One commenter requested clarification on the effects of performing a total silver Water -Effect Ratio (WER) study, expressing concern that the language states that after completion of the WER and implementation of the multiplier, the compliance schedule is removed. What happens if the WER does not account for enough of a multiplier to result in immediate compliance? The City needs additional time to assess how to proceed if that were the case. Response: As the incorporation of the results of the WER study into the NPDES permit would require a major modification, the Division may include the continuation of the compliance schedule to provide time for the City to achieve compliance with the new limits during that process if necessary. PFAS Comments Page 5 of 13 Comment: PFAS Monitoring Multiple commenters stated that the proposed quarterly monitoring of PFAS is insufficient and recommended weekly monitoring, with one commenter recommending the addition of weekly instream PFAS monitoring as well. One commenter stated that the proposed quarterly monitoring was too much of a financial burden and requested reduction from quarterly to 2/year PFAS monitoring after the first 2 years of monitoring. Response: The Division considers quarterly monitoring for PFAS to be adequate based on guidelines in the EPA Memo addressing PFAS discharges in NPDES permits (dated 12/5/2022)2 and concentrations of PFAS chemicals detected from influent waste stream samplings in 2019. Comment: PFAS Limits Two commenters recommended that limits for PFAS chemicals be added to the permit. Response: A PFAS monitoring requirement has been added to the NPDES permit. After EPA publishes a 40 CFR Part 136 method for PFAS testing in wastewater, the proposed permit condition will require PFAS monitoring to begin six months later. This six-month period provides time for laboratories to become certified using the new EPA -approved method. See DEQ's PFAS Action Strategy3 for more information. Comment: Pretreatment One commenter recommended source identification of PFAS and stronger pretreatment program requirements. Response: The Division reviewed the City's pretreatment program and did not find it to be deficient. Once an issued permit or permit renewal becomes effective, the permittee has 180 days to submit a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits within its pretreatment program. This may include revising, updating, or adding to the list of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). The Permittee is required to submit an updated Long -Term Monitoring Program (LIMP), including an updated Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) and a review of pollutants of concern (POCS) to reflect pollutants in Industrial User Permits (IUPs) and the facility's residuals (a.k.a. biosolids) land application program permit. Since PFAS requirements are proposed in the NPDES permit renewal for the City of Asheboro, the City's pretreatment program must consider PFAS as POCs and include them in updated LIMP, IWS, IUPs and Headworks Analysis (HWA), which trigger review of limits and monitoring for POCs including the PFAS chemical class. 1,4-Dioxane Comments Comment: 1,4-Dioxane limits and monitoring Three commenters noted support of inclusion of 1,4-dioxane weekly monitoring and limitations based on the use of the Instream Target Value (EPA -IRIS cancer risk of 0.35 µg/L) and average z https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-guidance-states-reduce-harmful-pfas-pollution 3 https://www.deq.nc.gov/genx/nc-deq-action-strategy-pfas/open Page 6 of 13 annual flow in the Deep River at the next downstream water supply watershed boundary for development of site -specific WQBELs. One commenter requested the Division to consider cumulative effects of all upstream 1,4-dioxane discharges on downstream water supply surface waters. Two commenters challenged the authority of the Division to implement 1,4-dioxane effluent limitations based on the Instream Target Value, believe that the Division is incorrectly implementing 15A NCAC 02B .0208 and that the 1,4-dioxane instream target value lacks a tie to scientific consensus. Two commenters believe that the Rules Review Commission rejecting the Environment Management Commission's proposed rulemaking to adopt a numeric standard for 1,4-dioxane during the 2022-2023 Triennial Review due to the lack of a cost -benefit analysis prevents the Division from implementing the Instream Target Value. Two commenters challenge that the determination of 1,4-dioxane as a likely human carcinogen is not enough to treat the chemical as a carcinogen. One commenter asserts that the December 2020 EPA Final Risk Assessment related to 1,4-dioxane finding no unreasonable risks to the environment from conditions of 1,4 dioxane use, no unreasonable risks to consumers or bystanders from any conditions of 1,4 dioxane use and no unreasonable risks to the general population related to 1,4 dioxane means that no 1,4-dioxane requirements should be implemented. One commenter challenged the Division's use of the EPA Technical Support Document for calculating a daily maximum limitation for 1,4-dioxane. One commenter challenged the Division's decision to consider downstream drinking water uses. One commenter asserted that technological and economic limitations make compliance with a 0.35 µg/L standard in a receiving stream practically unachievable. One commenter challenged the consistency of the Division's actions in NPDES permits for 1,4-dioxane. Response: Per 15A NCAC 02B .0203, "Water quality based effluent limitations and management practices for direct or indirect discharges of waste or for other sources of water pollution shall be developed by the Division such that the water quality standards and best usage of receiving waters and all downstream waters will not be impaired." As such, the Division is required to protect for the downstream WS designation. 1,4-dioxane is completely miscible in water and resistant to biodegradation. It is assumed that concentrations of 1,4-dioxane discharged from the WWTP will be equivalent at the direct discharge to Hasketts Creek, a class C waterbody, and the nearest downstream water supply (WS-V) boundary, located in the Deep River 1.0 mile upstream of Tysons Creek and 43.5 miles downstream of the outfall. While the drinking water intake in this WS-V section of the Deep River is currently inactive, it is still considered a potential drinking water source, which can become active in the future, and is subject to WS protections. Per 15A NCAC 02B .0218(4), "No discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes shall be allowed that have an adverse effect on human health or that are not treated in accordance with the permit or other requirements established by the Division pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1. Upon request by the Commission, dischargers or industrial users subject to pretreatment standards shall disclose all chemical constituents present or potentially present in their wastes and chemicals that could be spilled or be present in runoff from their facility which may have an adverse impact on downstream water quality. These facilities may be required to have spill and treatment failure control plans as well as perform special monitoring for toxic substances." Page 7 of 13 Per 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a), "Toxic Substances: the concentration of toxic substances, either alone or in combination with other wastes, in surface waters shall not render waters injurious to aquatic life or wildlife, recreational activities, or public health, nor shall it impair the waters for any designated uses." 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a) further outlines how the "narrative standard for toxic substances and numerical standards applicable to all waters" shall be interpreted. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is run by EPA toxicologists who put together a risk assessment via a 6-step process with both internal and external experts and a public comment aspect. Through this, EPA provides a reference dose to act as a gold standard for use in various exposure pathways. Per EPA's IRIS Chemical Assessment Summary for 1,4-Dioxane; CASRN 123-91-1, "[i]n accordance with the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2005a), 1,4-dioxane is characterized as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." This characterization is based on the following findings: (1) inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, and (2) sufficient evidence in animals (i.e., hepatic tumors in multiple species [three strains of rats, two strains of mouse, and in guinea pigs]; mesotheliomas of the peritoneum, mammary, and nasal tumors have also been observed in rats following 2 years of oral exposure to 1,4- dioxane)." Lack of sufficient studies of the carcinogenicity of 1,4-dioxane in humans is not uncommon considering toxicological testing for carcinogenicity of chemicals in humans is not conducted. The identification of 1,4- dioxane as 'likely to be carcinogenic to humans" was further corroborated in EPA's December 2020 Final Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane CASRN:123-91-1. 15A NCAC 02B .0208 provides regulations regarding implementation of the narrative standard for toxic substances and numerical standards applicable to all waters for non -carcinogens and carcinogens. As one cannot definitively claim that 1,4-dioxane is a non -carcinogen, the implementation of 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a)(2)(B) is appropriate for protection of downstream drinking water uses. Per 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a)(2)(B), "For carcinogens, the concentrations of toxic substances shall not result in unacceptable health risks and shall be based on a Carcinogenic Potency Factor (CPF). An unacceptable health risk for cancer shall be more than one case of cancer per one million people exposed (10-6 risk level). As described earlier, toxicological testing for carcinogenicity of chemicals in humans is not conducted. However, there are mathematical models that extrapolate the dose that caused a toxic effect in the animal model to an equivalent dose in humans. The EPA uses Benchmark Dose Software to conduct these calculations. These calculations are where the Human Equivalency Dose (HED) is determined. The 95% lower bound estimate of exposure and the central estimate of exposure of the HED are used to determine what the slope of the linear extrapolation is. EPA's IRIS used the default linear extrapolation, specifically a Low -Dose Extrapolation Approach, to determine an oral slope factor of 0.1 mg/kg/day and the drinking water unit risk is 2.9 x 10-6 µg/L and calculates that the drinking water concentration representing a 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level Page 8 of 13 for 1,4-dioxane is 0.35 µg/L. This value has been set as an Instream Target Value for chronic exposure to 1,4-dioxane. EPA's Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria and Instream Target Values identified by the Division's Standards and Classifications Branch provide the Division with numeric aids for implementing the narrative standard. Application of Instream Target Values (ISTV) in order to comply with the narrative standard has occurred in many permits prior to the application of the 1,4-dioxane ISTV in this permit. For consideration of the downstream drinking water uses, allowable discharge concentrations were calculated for both the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek and for the nearest downstream water supply (WS-V) boundary, and the more restrictive concentration was selected for protection of downstream uses. Per 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a)(4)(B), "[t]he mean annual flow to protect human health from carcinogens through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish unless site specific fish contamination concerns necessitate the use of an alternative design flow." The applicable mean annual flows for each respective location, the discharge point into Hasketts Creek and the downstream WS-V boundary, were used in calculation of the allowable discharge concentrations. EPA IRIS also determined an ISTV for 1,4-dioxane outside of WS waters of 80 µg/L, which was used in calculation of the allowable discharge concentration for 1,4-dioxane in the direct discharge to Class C Hasketts Creek. As the calculated allowable discharge concentration at the downstream drinking water supply boundary was more protective, it was implemented in the NPDES permit NC0026123. In the 1991 Technical Support Document, Section 5.4.4 EPA Recommendations for Permitting of Human Health Protection, EPA recommends and provides guidance for the calculation and use of maximum daily limitations based on effluent variability and the number of samples per month using the multipliers provided within the document in Table 5-3. The Division used this recommendation and guidance to develop daily maximum limitations for use in the NPDES permit. Daily maximum limitations accompanied by weekly monitoring mitigate industrial slugs from dischargers and reduce risk of potential chronic impacts at downstream drinking water utilities. The calculated allowable discharge concentration for the Asheboro WWTP is considered technologically achievable with pretreatment action. The Division is assessing other dischargers for 1,4-dioxane and protection of the downstream water uses. One comment noted permitting actions for DAKAmericas, NC0003719. This permit is being reevaluated and appropriate action is to be proposed before issuance. Please note that the Rules Review Commission's decision to reject the Environment Management Commission's proposed rulemaking to adopt a numeric standard for 1,4-dioxane at the 2022- Page 9 of 13 2023 Triennial Review does not in any way supersede the requirements currently enacted in the 15A NCAC 02B rules, including the narrative standard described in 15A NCAC 02B .0218(4). Comment: Use of 1,4-Dioxane Permitting Strategy One commenter challenged the Division's use of the 2022 DWR NPDES Strategy for 1,4-dioxane due to the strategy being in draft form and not signed by a Division or Agency official. The same commenter believes that use of the strategy purports to establish regulation outside of the Agency's rulemaking authority. Response: The 2022 DWR NPDES Strategy (the Strategy) for 1,4-dioxane provides permit writers with guidance for identifying, investigating, reducing and eliminating the discharge of 1,4- dioxane from NPDES dischargers. While the Strategy provides a framework of recommended actions and a prioritization plan for permit writers by developing Action Level Tiers, the recommended actions are consistent with the Division's approach to other parameters of concern (e.g. effluent monitoring and limits assessment). The limits incorporated in the permit were developed in accordance with rules set out in the 15A NCAC 02B rules, and not a result of any guidelines outlined in the Strategy. Comment: 1,4-Dioxane Schedule of Compliance Three commenters requested that the 1,4-dioxane compliance schedule be reduced from 5 years to 3 years since the City of Asheboro has known of the presence of 1,4-dioxane in their waste stream since 2018 and has already identified sources. Response: The City of Asheboro identified the presence of 1,4-dioxane in their facility's wastewater as early as 2018. However, the technology and understanding surrounding 1,4- dioxane has continually evolved since 2018 and the City has taken action to identify likely sources of the parameter to their facility. Due to the nature of mitigation of 1,4-dioxane in WWTP discharges, the City continues to need time to achieve compliance with the new permit limitations. The City will be working with their industries, conducting sampling, and investigating other necessary options for reduction of 1,4-dioxane concentrations in their effluent, which takes time. Five years has been determined to be an appropriate amount of time to conduct mitigation efforts. In the interim, the City is required to achieve noted reductions throughout the term of the permit to demonstrate continual progress in their efforts. As such, the 5-year compliance period with tiered limitations has been maintained. Comment: 1,4-Dioxane Downstream Utility Notification One commenter supported the requirement for notification of downstream utilities in the event of a 1,4-dioxane discharge at levels greater than the allowable discharge concentration but requested that at least two points of contact be included in the utility list due to staff turnover. Page 10 of 13 Response: The request for a secondary contact for each downstream utility has been considered and the Utility Contact List has been updated to include an additional contact for each listed utility. IV. Recommendations Based on the review of public comments, the draft permit and additional information, the North Carolina General Statutes and Administrative Code, and discussions with DWR staff, I offer the following comments and recommendations for issuance of a renewed NPDES Permit for City of Asheboro — Asheboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (NC0026123). Based upon the information available, I recommend that the NPDES Permit renewal for City of Asheboro — Asheboro Wastewater Treatment Plant (NC0026123) be issued subject to the conditions included below: The Downstream Utility Contact List should include a secondary point of contact for each downstream utility to ensure that the utilities are notified in the event of elevated 1,4-dioxane levels reported in the Asheboro WWTP effluent. It is further recommended that DWR include any additional conditions necessary to ensure that the permit will meet state water quality standards. V. Summary The hearing officer thoroughly reviewed all public comments received and the project record in the context of all pertinent statutes and regulations governing the review of the City of Asheboro's Wastewater Treatment Plant's NPDES permit renewal. Based on this information, it is the hearing officer's recommendation that the NPDES Permit No. NCO026123 renewal be issued and subject to the conditions recommended in Section IV. It is further recommended that DWR include any additional conditions necessary to ensure that the permit will meet state water quality standards. E DocuSigned by: aw,c,sL I°4" E3415E2CMB24CD... Ramesh Ravella, Hearing Officer Page 11 of 13 8/17/2023 Date VI. Appendices (available on Laserfiche) A. March 21, 2016 — NPDES Permit Renewal Application • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123_Renewal (Application)_20160321 Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=361060&dbid=0&repo=Water Racni irrac B. May 9, 2018 — First Draft NPDES Permit • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123_Draft Permit_20180501 Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=665769&dbid=0&repo=Water Racni irroc C. December 6, 2022 — Second Draft NPDES Permit • Laserfiche File Name: NC006123_Draft Permit_20221206 Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2601378&dbid=0&repo=Wate rRacni irrac D. December 6, 2022 — Draft Fact Sheet • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Fact Sheet 20221207 Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2601402&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources E. Comments to Draft Permit • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Comments 20230109 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=26364ll&dbid=0&repo=Wate rRocni irrar • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123_Comments_20230109 (2) Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2636425&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Comments 20230111 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2639566&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Comments 20230119 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2651502&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Comments 20230123 Page 12 of 13 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2652381&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Comments 20230127 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2659279&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources&cr=1 • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Comments 20230130 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2663569&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources • Laserfiche File Name: NC0026123 Comments 20230522 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2804606&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources&cr=1 F. Notice of Public Hearing • Laserfiche Filename: NC0026123_Affidavit_20230509 Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2786122&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources G. Public Hearing Speaker and Non -Speaker Sign In sheets • Laserfiche Filename: NC0026123 Other 20230608 Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2826746&dbid=0&repo=Wate rRocni irroc H. Public Hearing recording including oral comments • File Name: Asheboro PH Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2824543&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources I. Written comments received after the public hearing, within the comment period • Laserfiche Folder Name: NC0026123_Comments_20230524 Laserfiche link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2826803&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources • Laserfiche Folder Name: NC0026123_Comments_20230526 Laserfiche Link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?id=2812335&dbid=0&repo=Wate rResources Page 13 of 13