NC0043320_Comments_20230915

SOUTHERN 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
LAW
CENTER
September 15, 2023
Dr. Sergei Chemikov
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Re: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on Draft NPDES Permit
No. NC0043320, Elevate Textiles
Dear Dr. Chemikov:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments regarding the
draft renewal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit NC0043320,
issued by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("the Department") to
Elevate Textiles ("Elevate").' Elevate discharges wastewater from its textile facility in Cordova,
North Carolina, into a portion of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin that is protected for aquatic
life, secondary recreation, and agriculture.2 The North Carolina / South Carolina border is
approximately 10 miles downstream of Elevate's discharge. Approximately 7 additional miles
downstream lies the drinking water intake for the town of Cheraw, South Carolina.
Based on sampling conducted at Elevate's textile facility in Burlington, North Carolina,
Elevate's wastewater from its Cordova facility likely contains high concentrations of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), chemicals known to cause harm to human health and the
environment at incredibly low levels. Elevate did not, however, disclose its HAS pollution,3 and
the Department did not impose technology -based or water quality -based limits in this draft
NPDES permit, as required by law.4 As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
made clear in guidance issued last December, state permitting agencies should use their "existing
authorit[y]" to control PFAS discharges "to the fullest extent available under state and local
law. ,5 Before this permit is made final, the Department must require that Elevate
comprehensively sample for and disclose any HAS pollution, and the agency must evaluate the
need for PFAS limits in this NPDES permit.
'N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft NPDES Permit No. NC0043320 (Aug. 8, 2023) [hereinafter "Elevate Draft
Permit"]. We note that while the permit is dated August 8, 2023, public notice was not run in the county paper until
August 9, 2023. The public notice states that the Department will accept public comment until September 15, 2023.
See Affidavit of Publication, Public Notice #NC0043320 (Aug. 9, 2023), Attachment 1.
2 Elevate, Renewal Application NPDES Permit NC0043320 (Nov. 26, 2019), [hereinafter "Elevate, Permit
Application"], Elevate Draft Permit, supra note 1 at 2.
s See generally Elevate, Permit Application.
a See N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Fact Sheet For NPDES Permit Development NPDES Permit NC0043320 (July 5,
2023) [hereinafter "Elevate Permit Fact Sheet"].
5 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), at 1-2
[hereinafter "EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance"], Attachment 2.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

I. Elevate likely discharges PFAS, a class of chemicals known to cause harm to
human health and the environment.
Elevate operates a textile mill in Cordova, NC, that manufacturers synthetic, wool, and
synthetic/wool blend fabrics.6 EPA has determined that textile manufacturers such as Elevate
likely use or discharge PFAS, concluding that "PFAS have been, and continue to be, used by
textile mills in the United States to impart outdoor gear, clothing, household fabrics, carpets, and
other textile products with water, oil, soil, and heat resistance" among other characteristics.8
Given Elevate's industry category, it is likely the facility's wastewater contains PFAS.
Moreover, we know through investigations at Elevate's facility in Burlington, North
Carolina that the company can be a significant source of PFAS pollution. Elevate is one of three
major sources releasing PFAS into the city of Burlington's wastewater treatment plant system.9 A
couple of years ago, it was discovered that Burlington's East Burlington wastewater treatment
plant had been discharging PFAS at incredibly high levels. Following that discovery, SELC hired
the Environmental Analytical Chemistry Laboratory at Duke University on behalf of Haw River
Assembly to conduct Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay analyses of industrial sources
releasing wastewater into the Burlington's wastewater treatment plant. That investigation
identified Elevate's Burlington facility as the most significant source of PFAS. In fact, levels of
PFAS in Elevate's Burlington discharge surpassed 10.8 million parts per trillion (`ppt'). The
following chart contains other PFAS concentrations measured in the wastewater from Elevate's
Burlington facility:
Date
Total PFAS Concentration of Elevate Textile's
Discharge Using TOP Assay Analysis
11/15/2021
4,201,224 ppt
4/7/2022
863,898 ppt
5/26/2022
2,526,806 ppt
9/8/2022
2,446,117 ppt
12/8/2022
2,348,553 ppt
2/9/2023
10,887,889 ppt
6 Elevate, Permit Application, supra note 2, at PDF pg. 3-4.
7 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Metadata for Data Sources within PFAS Analytic Tools (May 2023), at 34, available at
hops:Hecho.epa.gov/system/files/PFAS%2OAnalytic%2OTools%2OMetadata%202023-05-09%20508.pdf (metadata
for EPA's PFAS analytic tool indicating that industry codes 2221 likely use or release PFAS).
a U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Jan. 2023), at 6-7,
hops://www.0a.gov/system/files/documents/2023-01/11143 ELG%20Plan%2015 508.pdf.
9 See Isaac Groves, Burlington's Water Now Has More Toxic PFAS Forever Chemicals' Than EPA Recommends,
THE BURLINGTON TIMES NEWS (July 31, 2022); see also Lisa Sorg, Burlington Will Curb PFAS Discharges, Per
Legal Settlement with Haw River Assembly, N.C. NEWSLINE (Aug. 2, 2023),
httns://ncnewsline. com/2023/08/02/burlinL,ton-will-curb-nfas-discharges-tier-le gal -settlement -with -haw -river -
assembly/.
2

Elevate's PFAS pollution had a serious impact on downstream communities. Largely due
to Elevate's pollution, Pittsboroa town approximately 30 miles downstream —has had PFAS in
its drinking water supply for years. At times, Pittsboro's drinking water exceeded 1,200 ppt.I0
Elevate's pollution at its Burlington facility highlights the need to understand the scope of
pollution at the company's Cordova facility.
II. The Department must amend this draft permit to address Elevate's likely
PFAS pollution.
Because Elevate's industry category suggests it uses PFAS and investigations at other
facilities confirm the company can be a significant source of PFAS pollution, we urge the
Department to take the following actions before issuing this final permit.
First, the Department should require Elevate to sample its effluent and disclose the
presence of PFAS.11 The Department should instruct Elevate to utilize a comprehensive sampling
method, such as TOP Assay or Total Organic Fluorine analyses, because the vast majority of
PFAS that Elevate releases from its Burlington facility are considered "precursors," or PFAS that
breakdown into other PFAS once released into the environment. Targeted sampling methods, like
Method 537.1 or Draft Method 1633, cannot detect PFAS precursors. Methods like TOP Assay,
on the other hand, can detect the presence of precursors because they simulate the degradation
that occurs within the natural environment.12 The importance of comprehensive sampling cannot
be understated. As indicated through sampling at Elevate's Burlington facility, using a targeted
PFAS method rather than one like TOP Assay will miss nearly all the company's PFAS pollution:
Date
Total PFAS Concentration
of Elevate Textile's
Discharge Using Targeted
Analysis
Total PFAS Concentration
of Elevate Textile's
Discharge Using TOP Assay
Analysis
11/15/2021
195 ppt
4,201,224 ppt
4/7/2022
86 ppt
863,898 ppt
5/26/2022
117 ppt
2,526,806 ppt
9/8/2022
282 ppt
2,446,117 ppt
12/8/2022
285 ppt
2,348,553 ppt
2/9/2023
347 ppt
10,887,889 ppt
Failure to require comprehensive sampling from this facility could, therefore, mask the
company's impact on downstream rivers and the communities that rely on them. The Department
10 Greg Barnes, PFAS Shows Up in Haw River, Pittsboro Water, But Gets Limited Local Attention, N.C. HEALTH
NEWS (July 30, 2019), hgps://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2019/07/30/pfas-shows-up-in-haw-river-pittsboro-
water-but-little-local-outcry/.
i i The discharge of a specific pollutant (or group of pollutants) cannot be permitted if it is not disclosed in a NPDES
permit application. See Consolidated Permit Application Forms for EPA Programs, 45 Fed. Reg. 33,526-31 (May
19, 1980); Piney Run Pres. Assn v. Cty. Commis of Carroll Cty., Maryland, 268 F.3d. 255, 265 (4th Cir. 2001);
12 See Mohamed Ateia et al., Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay — Best Practices, Capabilities and Limitations
for PFAS Site Investigation and Remediation, 10 ENVT SCI. & TECH. LETTERS 291-301 (2023),
https://pubs.acs.or /g doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00061.

has the authority and obligation to request comprehensive sampling from Elevate during this
permit application process,13 and the agency should use this authority to (1) instruct Elevate to
sample its effluent using TOP Assay or a similar sampling method, and (2) require disclosure of
the results.
Second, once Elevate discloses its PFAS pollution, the Department must analyze effluent
limits to control the pollution through this NPDES permit. In December 2022, EPA released
guidance instructing state agencies on how to address PFAS through existing NPDES
authorities.14 The guidance points to technology -based and water quality -based effluent limits as
effective tools for eliminating toxic pollution at the source —before it reaches our rivers.15
The Clean Water Act and North Carolina law require permitting agencies to, at the very
least, incorporate technology -based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.16 When
EPA has not issued a national effluent limitation guideline for a particular industry or pollutant,"
permitting agencies must implement technology -based effluent limits on a case -by -case basis
using their "best professional judgment."18 EPA has confirmed that technology -based limits are
the "minimum level of control that must be imposed in NPDES permits" and that they should be
calculated for PFAS.19 In light of these requirements, the Department's decision to impose
lenient monitoring conditions20 instead of limits violates the law.
As the Department and Elevate know, effective treatment technologies for PFAS are
available. As of last year, Elevate has installed ultrafiltration-reverse osmosis treatment systems
in at least four of its facilities; and in at least one facility, Elevate implemented a "Zero Liquid
Discharge" system which allowed the facility to operate without a discharge. 21 Additionally and
in accordance with a settlement agreement between Haw River Assembly and the city of
Burlington, Elevate's Burlington facility is evaluating and installing a similar "closed -loop"
system to prevent PFAS contamination from flowing into the Burlington wastewater treatment
plant. Because the company has utilized these technologies at other locations, if Elevate's
Cordova facility is a source of PFAS, the Department should require Elevate to consider
implementing the same, or other technologies.
In addition, granular activated carbon is a cost-effective and efficient technology that can
reduce PFAS concentrations to virtually nondetectable levels. A granular activated carbon
treatment system at the Chemours' facility, for example, has reduced PFAS concentrations as
high as 345,000 ppt from a creek contaminated by groundwater beneath the facility to nearly
13 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215(c)(1).
14 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 5.
15 Id. at 3-4.
16 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) ("Technology -based treatment requirements under section 301(b) of the Act represent the
minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit..." (emphasis added)); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311; see
also EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 5, at 3.
17 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, NPDES Permit Writers' Manual: Chapter 5. Technology Based
Effluent Limitations (Sept. 2010), at 5-14.
'g 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(2)(i)(B); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0406.
19 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 5, at 3.
20 Elevate Draft Permit, supra note 1 at 3, 9.
21 See Elevate Textiles, Sustainability 2022 (April 2022), at 10, hgps://www.elevatetextiles.copI wp-
content/uploads/2022/04/2022-04-27-ET-SustainabilityReport.pdf.
4

nondetectable concentrations.22 Here, where Elevate's discharge volume is significantly less than
Chemours, treatment would be more affordable. Other technologies are effective in removing
PFAS from wastewater. Super -critical water oxidation, for example, has been utilized to treat
PFAS-laden landfill leachate in Michigan.23 This technology can destroy virtually 100 percent of
PFAS in the wastewater fed into the system.24 The Department must consider the feasibility of
using such technologies to control the PFAS pollution being released from Elevate's facility.
Importantly, if the Department needs more information to conduct the appropriate
technology -based effluent limit analysis, it can require Elevate to provide the data the agency
needs. North Carolina law affords the Department the authority to "require an applicant to
submit, plans, specifications, and other information the [Department] considers necessary to
evaluate the application."25 This provision can and should be used to ask Elevate to evaluate
treatment technologies that would effectively treat its discharge. Putting the responsibility on
Elevate shifts the burden of discharging pollutants from downstream communities to polluters —
as the Clean Water Act intended.
If technology -based limits are not enough to ensure compliance with water quality
standards, the Department must include water quality -based effluent limits in Elevate's permit.26
This obligation "may not be waived" and requires the agency to incorporate a permit limit
protective of water quality standards regardless of "treatability" or analytical method detection
levels.27 EPA permit writing guidance explains that these requirements are mandatory and that
monitoring requirements "may not be substituted" for water quality -based permit limits.28
Additionally, EPA has made clear that NPDES permits for facilities that release PFAS "must
include water quality -based effluent limits (WQBELs) as derived from state water quality
standards," including narrative water quality standards.29
For particular toxins, like PFAS, that do not have numeric water quality standards, the
Department has the authority and obligation to control discharges to surface water using the
narrative toxic substances standard.30 The Department has stated that PFAS "meet the definition
of `toxic substance"' and has included limits for PFAS referencing the toxic substances standard
22 See Parsons, Engineering Report — Old Outfall 002 GAC Pilot Study Results (Sept. 2019), available at
hops://www.chemours.com/j a/-/media/files/corporate/12e-old-outfal1-2-aac-pilot-report-2019-09-
30.pdf?rev=6el242091aa846f888afa895eff80e2e&hash=040CAA7522E3D64B9E5445ED6F96BOFB; see also
Chemours Outfall 003, NPDES No. NC0089915 Discharge Monitoring Reports (2020-2022), available at
hjt2s://perma.cc/8YND-XT5M.
23 Matt Jaworowski, North America's First PFASAnnihilator' Is Already Operating On Michigan, 59 NEWS (May
6, 2023), hgps://www.wvnstv.com/news/national-news/north-americas-first-pfas-annihilator-is-already-operating-
in-michigan/.
24 Christopher G. Scheitlin et al., Application of Supercritical Water Oxidation to Effectively Destroy Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Aqueous Matrices, 3 ACS ENVT SCI. & TECH WATER 2053, 2058 (Aug. 11, 2023),
available at https://pubs.acs.or /g doi/epdf/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00548.
25 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215(c)(1) (emphasis added).
26 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i); see also 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(b)(1)(C); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) (stating that
the Department must "reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations").
21 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Central Tenets of NPDES Permitting Program, at 3,
https://www.gpa. gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/tenets.pdf.
2s Id.
29 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 5, at 3.
30 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B.0208.

and EPA's health advisory for GenX in at least one NPDES permit.31 When evaluating the need
for water quality -based limits, the Department should take into consideration EPA's 2022
proposed health advisories for PFOA and PFOS,32 the many toxicity studies released for other
PFAS compounds, the Department of Health and Human Services' fish consumption
advisories,33 among other health information made available to the agency.
III. Conclusion.
We acknowledge that the Department has taken impressive steps to control PFAS from
Chemours, but the Department cannot selectively focus on certain sources of toxic pollution
while allowing others to freely contaminate our rivers, streams, and creeks freely. Elevate likely
releases high concentrations of PFAS into the Yadkin -Pee Dee River. The Department must
require Elevate to investigate and disclose its PFAS pollution. Upon disclosure, the agency must
control the facility's discharges through technology -based and, if necessary, water quality -based
effluent limits.
Thank you in advance for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-
1450 or [e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
4AW(All;dAA01V
Hannah M. Nelson
Jean Zhuang
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
31 Amended Complaint, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality v. Chemours, 17 CVS 580, 6-7 (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); N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality,
NPDES No. NCO090042 (Sept. 15, 2022), at 3, https://perma.cc/W69U-KEKT; N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Fact
Sheet NPDES Permit NCO090042 (Sept. 15, 2023), at 13-14, hops://perma.cc/D4BB-A4KU.
32 Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four Perfluoroalkyl Substances, 87 Fed. Reg. 36848, 36849 (June
21, 2022).
33 N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., NCDHHS Recommends Limiting Fish Consumption From the Middle and
Lower Cape Fear River Due to Contamination with "Forever Chemicals " (July 13, 2023),
hops://www.ncdhhs. gov/news/press-releases/2023/07/ 13 /ncdhhs-recommends-limiting-fish-consumption-middle-
and-lower-cape-fear-river-due-contamination.
0

ATTACHMENT 1

AFFP
PUBLIC NOTICE #NC0043320
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF NORTH SS
CAROLINA )
COUNTY OF RICHMOND }
Aaliyah Harrington, being duly sworn, says:
That she is Legal Advertising Representative of the The
Richmond County Daily Journal, a daily newspaper of
genera! cir_u!at!on„ printed and published in Rockingham,
Richmond County, North Carolina; that the publication, a
copy of which is attached hereto, was published in the
August 09, 2023
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated
on those dates.
SIGNED:
Legal Advertising Rep entative
PUBLIC NOTICE
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTENT TO ISSUE NPDES
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT #NC0043320
Public comment or objection to the draft permit is Invited. All comments received by
September 15, 2023. will be considered in the final determination regarding permit
issuance and permit provisions.
PERMIT APPLICATION
Elevate Textiles, P.O. Box 250, Cordova, N.C., has applied for renewal of its NPDES
wastewater permit (NC0043320) for Burlington Richmond Plant, 740 Old Cheraw
Rd., Richmond County. The facility discharges treated industrial wastewater and
domestic wastewater to Hitchcock Creek in Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. Some of
the parameters are water quality limited. This discharge may affect futuro allocations
in this portion of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The location of Outfall 001 is:
Latitude: 34055'4"; Longitude: 79049'51 ".
The draft wastewater permit and related documents are available online at:
https://deq.nc.gov/public-notices-hearings. Printed copies of the draft permit and
related documents may be reviewed at the department's Fayetteville Regional
Office. To make an appointment to review the documents, please call 910-443-3300.
Public comment on the draft permit modification should be mailed to: Wastewater
Permitting, 1617 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, N.C., 27699-1617. Public comments
may also be submifted by email to: [e-mail] Please be sure to
include `Elevate" in the email's subject line.
Subscribed to and sworn to me this 9th day of August
2023.
(�pEi
SAI y'
Amy J6iihhson, Nbta PwbliE, Richmond County, N&tFjl
Carolina I (P.
My commission expires: July 29, 2024
22041400 01129229
Wren Thedford
201-NCDEQ-DWR
1617 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, NC 27699

ATTACHMENT 2

J��A ED S T,4 TES`
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
W
y 6 OFFICE OF WATER
0
�2r'Q[ PROZ�GA
December 5, 2022
MEMORANDUM
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 1 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.
1 Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where EPA is the Pretreatment Control
Authority, https://www.epa.gov/ssystem/files/documents/2022-04/npdes pfas-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 Roadnap include: organic chemicals, plastics & synthetic fibers (OCPSF);
metal finishing; electroplating; electric and electronic components; landfills; pulp, paper &
paperboard; leather tanning & finishing; plastics molding & forining; 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)(1 3 )).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 Perin it Writer's Manual Section 4.5.1.
3 See https://www.epa.gov/water-research/pfas-analytical-methods-developinent-and-saiiipling-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 DNIRs (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 followings
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.

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 122.440) and 40 CFR 403.8(f)(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 snake 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.8
b. Where monitoring and IU inventory per section B.2 and B.3.a above indicate the presence of
HAS 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 asite-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.
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.
' 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.