NC0005126_Response to NC Commnets on Draft Permit_20151001

SJ��Ew rFs
�' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
tra>W REGION 4
Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
<t,'9L PRCit - ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
DEC 01 2015 RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR
DEC 0 9 2015
Mr. Tom Belnick
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality
1601 Mail Service Center Permitting Section
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1601
Re: Response to NC Comments on EPA's Draft Permit Quality Review Report
Dear Mr. Belnick:
Thank you for your thorough review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Permit Quality
Review(PQR)report, dated August 17, 2015. The EPA has discussed your comments with staff in the
EPA's Headquarters and we offer the following response. Where the document has changed due to your
comment, we noted this in our response as well.
Comment#1. Page 10, first bullet. The EPA states that some permits lacked Reasonable Potential
Analysis (RPA). North Carolina is requesting the EPA to provide a list of these permits, and NC will
investigate.
Response. The EPA Region 4 found RPA to be missing from the administrative records for 2 of the 18
permits reviewed during the PQR process: 1)NC0005126, Tyson; 2)NC0021423, Spruce Hill. To add
clarity to the PQR report, this bullet was modified as follows: Review of the related administrative
record and fact sheets revealed that for 2 of the 18 permits reviewed no RPA was done,particularly for
renewed permits. In cases when RPA was done, it was completed for all parameters.
Comment#2. Page 21, WET Testing. The EPA states that the.current WET test requirement is
inconsistent with 40 CFR 136 requirements. Attached please find prior EPA approvals for the Alternate
WET Test Procedure.
Response: The EPA acknowledges its prior approval for North Carolina's Alternate WET test
procedures and the representative sections in the PQR report pertaining to this topic have been changed.
Comment#3. Page 25, Monitoring and Reporting, second bullet. EPA states that mercury limits are not
consistent with the State water quality standard of 12 ng/l. In response,NC evaluates mercury using two
approaches. First,NC implements its 2012 mercury TMDL for protection of human health(based on a
fish tissue target of 0.3 mg/kg) via mercury minimization plans (MMPs). MMPs are required for
Permittees with permitted flows> 2 MGD and discharging significant quantities of mercury(> 1 ng/1 in
effluent). Second,NC conducts a modified reasonable potential analysis for Permittees to exceed the NC
water quality standard of 12 ng/1, allowing for limited 7Q10 dilution,but capped at a TBEL equal to 47
ng/l. NC will be evaluating its mercury water quality standard at the next Triennial Review.
Response. Background information pertaining to mercury in the Monitoring and Reporting section of the
PQR Report was changed to acknowledge North Carolina's two-prong approach to evaluating mercury
limits in permits. It was unclear from the administrative records for the permits the EPA reviewed as to
how the limits for mercury were determined. To improve transparency and to increase the effectiveness
Internet Address(URL)• http//www epa gov
Recycled/Recyclable•Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper(Minimum 30%Postconsumer)

of the NPDES program, the bullet on page 25 pertaining to mercury limits in permits was changed to a
Category 3 finding recommending that North Carolina include documentation in the administrative
records on how mercury limits in permits comply with the State's two-prong approach.
Comment#4. Page-25, Antidegradation Analysis. The EPA states that the administrative records did not
indicate that antidegradation analyses were conducted. In response,NC conducts antidegradation
reviews for new/expanding discharges, but not renewals. NC is requesting that EPA clarify how many
applicable permits (and which ones) lacked antidegradation consideration, and NC will investigate.
Response. Of the 18 permits the EPA reviewed as part of the PQR, seven of the permits were found to
be lacking sufficient information in the administrative records to document antidegradation.
Specifically,the permits issued to Coats America, Inc. (NC0004243), PCS Phosphates Co., Inc.
(NC0003255), and Littleton WWTP (NC0020435)were missing antidegradation analyses in the
administrative record. The administrative records for the remaining four permits, Spruce Pine WWTP
(NC0021423), Invista, S.A.R.L. (NC0001112), Tysons Foods, Inc. (NC0005126), and Pinetop WWTP
(NC0020435) did not include the previous permit for comparing effluent limits between the
new/modified/reissued permit with conditions in the expired permit.
Comment#5. Page 27, Stormwater, first bullet. This Category 1 Finding does not appear to identify a
current deficiency or noncompliance; it merely states to continue what we are doing.
Response. This Category 1 Finding was deleted from the final PQR report. Rather, this compliment of
North Carolina's stormwater permitting program was moved to the opening paragraph of this section.
The next steps in the PQR process is to post the final PQR report on the EPA's website and for the EPA
Regional staff to track compliance with the Category 1 Findings through their oversight role in
reviewing the draft permits North Carolina submits to the EPA. The EPA Headquarters plans to conduct
another PQR in North Carolina in five years. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding our
response to your comments, please contact Ms. Molly Davis, of my staff, at [phone] or via email
at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
1 .04e,/
. e P. Giattina
Director
Water Protection Division
Enclosure

RECEIVED/DENR/DWR
DEC 0 9 2015
FINAL Water Quality
Permitting Section
NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
NORTH CAROLINA
DRAFT
EPA DRAFT INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE
DO NOT QUOTE, CITE OR RELEASE
May 29-31, 2013
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center (SNAFC)
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
Contents
I. PQR BACKGROUND, 1
II. 'STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND 2
A. Program Structure 2
B. Universe and Permit Issuance 4
C. State-Specific Challenges 5
D. Current State Initiatives 6
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS 6
A., Basic Facility Information and Permit Application 6
1. Facility Information 6
2. Permit Application Requirements 6
B. Technology-based Effluent Limitations 7
1. TBELs for POTWs: 7
2. TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers: 7
C. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 8
1. Anti-degradation: 10
2. Anti-backsliding: 11
3. Mixing Zone and Dilution: 11
D. Monitoring and Reporting 11
1. Sufficiently Sensitive Methods: 11
E. Standard and Special Conditions 12
F. Administrative Process _ 13
G. Administrative Record 13
1. Documentation of Effluent Limitations: 14
H. National Topic Areas 14
1. Nutrients 15
2. Pesticides 15
3. Pretreatment 16
4. Storm water 17
IV. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 21
A. Whole Effluent Toxicity 21
B. Water Quality Trading 22
V. ACTION ITEMS 23
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application 24
B. Technology-based Effluent Limitations 24
C. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 24
D. Monitoring and Reporting 25
E. Special and Standard Conditions 25
F. Administrative Process (including public notices) 26
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
G. Documentation (including fact sheet) 26
H. National Topic Areas 27
1. Nutrients 27
2. Pesticides 27
3. Pretreatment 27
4. Storm water 27
I. Regional Topic Areas 28
1. Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET) Testing 28
2. Water Quality Trading 28
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 ii

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
I. PQR BACKGROUND
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Quality Reviews (PQRs) are
an evaluation of a select set of NPDES permits to determine whether permits are developed in a
manner consistent with applicable requirements established in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
NPDES regulations. Through this review mechanism, EPA promotes national consistency and
identifies successes in implementation of the NPDES program and identifies opportunities for
improvement in the development of NPDES permits.
EPA's review team, consisting of EPA regional and headquarters staff and contractor support,
conducted a review of the North Carolina NPDES permitting program which included an on-site
visit to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in
Raleigh,North Carolina on May 29-31, 2013.
The North Carolina PQR consisted of two components: permit reviews and topic reviews. The
permit reviews focused on core permit quality and included a review of the permit application,
permit, fact sheet, and any correspondence, reports or documents that provide the basis for the
development of the permit conditions.
The core permit review involved the evaluation of selected permits and supporting materials
using basic NPDES program criteria. Reviewers completed the core review by examining
selected permits and supporting documentation, assessing these materials using standard PQR
tools, and talking with permit writers regarding the permit development process. The core review
focused on the Central Tenets of the NPDES Permitting program to evaluate the North Carolina
NPDES program. In addition, discussions between EPA and state staff addressed a range of
topics including program status,the permitting process, responsibilities, organization, and
staffing. Core topic area permit reviews are conducted to evaluate similar issues or types of
permits in all states. The national topics reviewed in the North Carolina NPDES program were:
nutrients, pesticide general permit,pretreatment, and stormwater.
Regional topic area reviews target regionally-specific permit types or particular aspects of
permits. EPA Region 4 selected whole effluent toxicity and water quality trading as regional
topic areas. These reviews provide important information to North Carolina, EPA Region 4, EPA
HQs and the public on specific program areas.
A total of eighteen(18) permits were reviewed as part of the PQR. Permits were selected based
on issuance date and the review categories that they fulfilled.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 1

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND
A. Program Structure
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) develops, issues
and administers NPDES permits in North Carolina. Permitting for point sources is conducted
within the Division of Water Quality. DENR's Central Office is located in Raleigh while the
state maintains seven district offices in Washington, Wilmington, Raleigh, Fayetteville, Winston-
Salem, Mooresville, and Asheville. The Central Office issues all NPDES permits and comprises
two units: the complex permitting and expedited permitting units. The expedited permitting unit
handles simple permit renewals, general permits, and complex enforcement cases. The complex
permitting unit handles both major and minor individual permits, special technical issues, and
policy implementation. The regional offices conduct inspections and are responsible for
compliance, enforcement, and complaint responses. Two counties, Wake and Mecklenburg,
conduct inspections of NPDES minor facilities within their jurisdictions.
Other groups within DENR support NPDES permitting: the basin planning unit, Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL)/Modeling unit, classification/standards unit, environmental sciences
section, and laboratory section. Prior to the basin kickoff meeting described below, permit
workloads are divided by management between the complex and expedited sections. Individual
assignments are made based on staff experience and current workloads.
DENR issues NPDES permits on a watershed basis. DENR uses a basin-wide information
management system (BIMS). According to DENR, BIMS is a centralized, integrated database
that comprises functional areas such as:
• Water Bodies—identifies and categorizes ocean, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and other water
bodies in 17 water basins,
• Owners—stores and tracks 5,000 individuals that own facilities and other entities of
environmental interest,
• . Facilities— stores and monitors 20,000 facilities and other environmental interests that
are permitted to discharge waste into water bodies, including surface waters,
groundwater, animal farms, and wetlands,
• Permitting—contains 38,000 permits in various program areas which are initiated from
applications, then stored and maintained in the BIMS,
• Monitoring— 16,800 discharge monitoring reports are keyed into BIMS annually from
approximately 1,400 regulated facilities (individual NPDES permit holders)—also
monitors non-discharge facilities,
• Inspections—standardizes and strengthens inspection processes in various program areas
to support 160 inspectors across the state, •
• Incidents—stores and tracks citizen complaints, accidental spills, wastewater treatment
plant bypasses, sanitary sewer overflows, and other incidents requiring DWQ attention,
• Monitoring and reporting violations—tracks and automatically generates violations
during nightly process based on monitoring, inspection, incident and other activities,
• Enforcement—supports and tracks DWQ enforcement actions against violators,
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 2

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
• Operator training and certification—supports required ongoing training activities and
certification status of approximately 9,000 wastewater treatment plant and other facility
operators across the state,
• Permitting and Enforcement Fees—tracks the various fees, dues and other financial
information to support the continued DWQ business operations,
• EPA Reporting—transmits required permit, monitoring and enforcement data to EPA's
Permit Compliance System(PCS) weekly—this information feeds EPA's Enforcement
and Compliance History Online (ECHO) system and the Center for Regulatory
Effectiveness (CRE) Watch List, and
• Reports - contains approximately 350 standard-format reports and dozens of ad hoc user
extracts.
In addition to BIMS, DENR maintains an aquatic toxicity in-house data management system.
Permitting tools include dissolved oxygen (DO) modeling, a reasonable potential analysis (RPA)
spreadsheet, an ammonia/total residual chlorine spreadsheet, a spreadsheet for textile facilities,
and nutrient allocation tables.
Prior to beginning work on permits, there is a kick-off meeting involving the permit writer, basin
leads, coordinators, and TMDL staff, among others. For each basin, a nutrient permitting strategy
and guidance document is developed. Active, individual NPDES permits are identified and
grouped into those facilities with or without nutrient allocations. Goals for permit renewals are
identified, permit template language for nutrient special conditions are provided along with the
steps the permit writer should follow to ensure the correct conditions are included in each permit.
A spreadsheet was developed that contains the following information:
• NPDES permit number and discharge information,
• Discharge type (municipal, industrial, etc.),
• Subbasin,
• Assigned permit writer,
• Total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus limits, averaging periods, etc.,
• Special conditions and/or allocations, and
• Flow category.
North Carolina does allow pollutant transfers within a basin. These typically involve nutrients
and are handled as permit modifications. Site specific data and information is examined to
determine localized affects as well as upstream and downstream potential impacts. Standardized
permit and fact sheet templates have not been developed. The most recent electronic permit and
fact sheet for the discharger are typically utilized as the starting point for permit development.
Permit packages are peer reviewed and the use of checklists is being considered. There is an
older version of permit writing procedures that was developed in 1999, DENR wants to develop
its own permit writers' guide.
DENR sends a letter to existing dischargers prior to the permit expiration date that provides links
to applicable applications. DENR stated they use EPA application forms; however, during the
visit, it was determined that the state uses a state-specific "short form" for some minor facilities.
A permit writer reviews the permit application for completeness. If the application package is
complete, an acknowledgment letter is sent to the applicant. For permit renewals, if the
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 3

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
application is not complete the permit writer will contact the permittee to request the missing
information. For new permits or permit expansions, if the application does not contain all the
required information and forms it will be returned to the permittee. After the application package
is complete, a draft permit is developed. The appropriate Regional Office will review and
comment on the draft permit.
An adjudication process is available for permittees upon written request within 30 days after
receiving the permit. All individual draft permits for major and minor facilities issued for public
comment are public noticed in a local newspaper. If no significant comments are received by
DENR, the permit writer finalizes the permit and issues it 45 days after the public notice is
published in the local newspaper.
If the public presents a strong opposition to the issuance of a permit during the 30 day comment
period, a public hearing may be warranted. The public hearing process involves an additional 30
day public hearing notice and a 60 day period after the public hearing for the hearing officer to
make a recommendation to the Director. The Director then has 30 days to evaluate the hearing
officer recommendation and deny or issue the permit with modifications.
Permit files are maintained in both electronic and hard copy form, although the intention is to
move toward a fully, electronic format. The full administrative record is maintained at Central
Files in Raleigh, and working files are maintained within the permits group.
B. Universe and Permit Issuance
Based on information provided prior to the PQR site visit, DENR reported that it administers
permits for the following:
• 293 POTWs
o (170 major and 123 minor; no CSOs)
• 928 non-municipal facilities
o (63 major and 865 minor)
• 4 concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) facilities, 1 individual permit
and 3 facilities covered under a General Permit
• Stormwater general permits covering:
o 106 municipal permittees (municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s))
o 3940 industrial permittees
o 8,000 construction permittees.
• DENR also has 1732 facilities covered under non-stormwater general permits.
Significant industries within the state include power plants, textiles, seafood processing, and bulk
fuel storage. DENR estimates 20.6 percent of NPDES major permits and 14 percent of NPDES
minor permits are expired and administratively continued (backlogged).
For new and expanding discharges, the permit development process includes a bi-weekly
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) group review meeting to review alternatives/flow
justifications to ensure programmatic consistency.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 4

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
Technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) in NPDES permits are determined by using one or
more of the following: (1) national standards for municipal dischargers or effluent guideline
regulations (BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS) established by EPA for various industrial categories;
or(2) case-by case analyses based on best professional judgment(BPJ).
Case-by-case BPJ limits are determined using: (1) permit file information(e.g., current and
previous NPDES application forms and correspondence files; previous NPDES permit and fact
sheet; statistical evaluation of effluent performance data from discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs); compliance inspection reports); (2) information from existing facilities and permits
(e.g.,NPDES Individual and general permits for other NPDES permits issued to facilities in the
same region or state, or that include case-by-case limitations for the same pollutants; toxicity
reduction evaluations (TREs) for selected industries; ICIS-NPDES data; literature (e.g., technical
journals and books); treatability manuals, state guidance documents); and (3) effluent guidelines
development and planning information (industry experts within EPA headquarters, EPA
Regions, and states; ELG Technical Development Documents, CWA section 308 questionnaires,
proposed and final regulations, and EPA guidance manuals; EPA's Technical Support
Documents (TSDs)).
Water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) are included in permits consistent with North
Carolina Water Quality Standards (WQS) and criteria in Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code,pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d). Parameters of concern are evaluated for
consistency with the available aquatic life criteria (chronic) and human health criteria,
considering mixing zones where appropriate.North Carolina has been allowed to use an action
level approach, specifically for copper and zinc. In addition,there are no statewide numeric
criteria for ammonia. EPA has recommended that action levels be removed and that the State
should adopt EPA's recommended criteria for metals.
Monitoring frequencies for specific types of dischargers are found in 15A NCAC 02B.0508 and
are based on the facility (SIC code) and classification. Once the public notice, draft permit, and
fact sheet are finalized, the signed public notice is sent to the local newspaper for publication,
and there is a 30-day period for public review and comment. Any comments are reviewed by
DENR staff, who develop written responses that are included in the administrative record. All
final administrative records are maintained in the central files located in Raleigh.
C. State-Specific Challenges
DENR's backlog numbers for expired permits have increased over the past few years. Hiring
freezes and departed staff have forced the prioritization of work. In addition, litigation over coal
ash, cooling water intake structures, and the Blue Ridge Paper Products NPDES permit(now
known as Evergreen permit), as well as more recently the permits associated with closure of the •
Duke Power's facilities have diverted staff time. The EPA has offered permit writing training to
DENR staff and has offered to provide guidance to improve permit quality.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 5

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
D. Current State Initiatives
The EPA commends North Carolina for taking leadership in encouraging the formation of Water
Quality Trading (WQT) Association for its innovative nutrient trading program between point
and nonpoint sources of pollution in Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The Association formed an
agreement with over 98% of the waste water dischargers in the basin to find more cost-effective
ways to collectively meet their nutrient loading cap. To date, because the Tar-Pamlico
Association has been successful at meeting their nutrient caps, the point-to-non-point source
nutrient trading provisions provided under the Tar-Pam Nutrient Strategy have not been needed.
Since the completion of the PQR process in 2013, DENR has made a commitment to reduce
permit backlog, collaborate more openly and early on key permit renewals, and address newly
adopted WQS for metals in permits, once the WQS have been approved by EPA. Over the last
two years, DNR has spent considerable time collaborating with the.Region on the renewal of the
Evergreen Permit, as well as the permits associated with closure of the Duke Power coal ash
facilities.
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application
1. Facility Information
Basic facility information is necessary to properly establish permit conditions. For example,
information regarding facility type, location, processes and other factors is required by NPDES
permit application regulations (40 CFR 122.21). This information is essential for developing
technically sound, complete, clear and enforceable permits. Similarly, fact sheets must include a
description of the type of facility or activity subject to a draft permit.
The 18 permits and fact sheets reviewed during the core review include permit issuance,
effective and expiration dates, authorized signatures, and contain specific authorization-to-
discharge information. These permits and fact sheets identify the location of the facility, identify
the receiving waterbody by name and basin, and include very basic information describing the
types of activities and treatment and identifying outfalls. The fact sheets provide some basic
information regarding the designated uses of the receiving waterbodies and the impairment status
of the receiving water.
2. Permit Application Requirements
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.22 specify application requirements for permittees
seeking NPDES permits. Although federal forms are available, authorized states are also
permitted to use their own forms provided they include all information required by the federal
regulations. This portion of the review assesses whether appropriate, complete, and timely
application information was received by the state and used in permit development.
For the 18 permits that were reviewed, applications reviewed were generally submitted on-time.
Data provided in application forms lacked detailed information regarding method detection
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 6

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
limits; applications that contained "Non-Detect" in the field (versus an indication of method
detection limit) were deemed complete. An indication of Non-Detect is insufficient to determine
if sufficiently-sensitive analytical methods were employed and thus, quantifying the pollutant
with respect to applicable water quality standards.
North Carolina uses their own application Form A for minor facilities. Their forms are not
developed by the EPA and do not appear to require the same level of information as the EPA
forms. For example, some of the information that is missing from North Carolina's Form A that
EPA's Form 2 requires includes toxicity testing data, information on the disposal method(e.g.,
land application), geographic coordinates of the outfall(s), and a flow schematic drawing of the
facility.
B. Technology-based Effluent Limitations
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 125.3(a) require that permitting authorities develop technology-
based requirements where applicable. Permits, fact sheets and other supporting documentation
for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and non-POTWs were reviewed to assess whether
technology based effluent limitations (TBELs) represent the minimum level of control that must
be imposed in a permit.
1. TBELs for POTWs:
POTWs must meet secondary or equivalent to secondary standards (including limits for BOD,
TSS,pH, and percent pollutant removal), and must contain numeric limits for all of these
parameters (or authorized alternatives) in accordance with the secondary treatment regulations at
40 CFR Part 133. Eight POTW permits were reviewed as part of the PQR: Burnsville
(NC0020290); Pinetops (NC0020435); Spruce Hill (NC0021423); Chadbourn(NC0021865);
Littlejohn (NC0025691); Parkton(NC0026921); and Newton Clark (NC0036196).
The permits reviewed included an effluent limitations and monitoring requirements table that
incorporated BOD and TSS limitations, expressed as both weekly and monthly averages, pH
limitations expressed as a range, and percent removal requirements for BOD and TSS. There
were instances where BOD limitations were more restrictive than those specified in 40 CFR Part
133. DENR personnel stated this was common due to wasteload allocations developed using DO
modeling and through the basin wide permitting approach.
2. TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers:
Permits issued to non-POTWs must require compliance with a level of treatment performance
equivalent to Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), or Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) for existing sources, and consistent with New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for new sources. Where federal effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs)have been
developed for a category of dischargers, the TBELs in a permit must be based on the application
of these guidelines. If ELGs are not available, a permit must include requirements at least as
stringent as BPT/BAT/BCT developed on a case-by-case using best professional judgment(BPJ)
in accordance with the criteria outlined at 40 CFR 125.3(d).
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 7

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
The non-municipal permits chosen for review cover a variety of industries, including textiles,
power plants, phosphate mining and manufacturing, and meat and poultry products. The ELGs
generally appear to be properly applied and expressed; however, the fact sheets and
administrative records provide little detail regarding how the facility categorization was
conducted, whether the facilities were existing or new sources, and (where applicable) how
production levels were used to calculate effluent limits were established. The 10 non-municipal
permits reviewed as part of the PQR include: Invista S.A.R.L. (NC0001112); Coats American
(NC0004243); Pharr Yarns (NC0004812); Tyson Foods, Inc. (NC0005126); Captain Stevens
Seafood (NC00059218); Smithfield Packaging (NC0078344); PCS Phosphate (NC0003255);
Columbus County(NC0087947); Duke Energy (NC0004961); and West Point Homes
(NC0005762).
C. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations •
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)require permits to include any requirements in
addition to or more stringent than technology-based requirements where necessary to achieve
state water quality standards, including narrative criteria for water quality. To establish such
"water quality-based effluent limits" (WQBELs), the permitting authority must evaluate the
proposed discharge and determine whether technology-based requirements are sufficiently
stringent, and whether any pollutants or pollutant parameters could cause or contribute to an
excursion above any applicable water quality standard.
The North Carolina PQR assessed how permit writers implement these requirements.
Specifically, the PQR reviewed applications, permits, fact sheets, reasonable potential analysis
(RPA) worksheets, and other documents in the administrative record to evaluate how permit
writers and water quality modelers:
• determined the appropriate water quality standards applicable to receiving waters,
• evaluated and characterized the effluent and receiving water including identifying
pollutants of concern,
• determined critical conditions,
• incorporated information on ambient pollutant concentrations,
• assessed any dilution considerations, and
• determined whether limits were necessary for pollutants of concern and, where necessary,
calculate such limits or other permit conditions.
For impaired waters, the PQR also assessed whether and how permit writers consulted and
developed limits consistent with the assumptions of applicable EPA-approved total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs).
Based on permit and file reviews and discussions with state staff, the following issues were noted
with respect to the state's approach to conducting reasonable potential analyses (RPA) and
calculating WQBELs:
• There was little information in the fact sheet or administrative record documenting how
DENR selected "pollutants of concern"to assess impacts on water quality.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 8

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
• DENR employs a standardized spreadsheet to calculate instream pollutant concentrations
necessary to assess reasonable potential. The spreadsheets were found in some but not all
files reviewed.
• In general,North Carolina's water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life are
• expressed as a single "not to be exceeded"value. The water quality criteria do not appear
to incorporate duration or frequency components. DENR reported that these criteria are
implemented as chronic values, and are based on EPA's chronic criteria
recommendations.
• Although the state WQS do not appear to include aquatic life criteria for protection of
acute toxic effects, DENR reported that it uses EPA's acute criteria recommendations in
its reasonable potential determinations. DENR's spreadsheet reflects the use of these
acute values.
• The state has not adopted a numeric criterion for ammonia. In lieu of a numeric criterion,
the state has established an ammonia implementation policy (15A NCAC 02B.0208) that
calls for effluent limits for new and existing dischargers under various scenarios. It
appears that the effluent limits established in the policy for certain categories of
dischargers are based on technical performance of treatment plants; thus, it is unclear
how the limits are protective of water quality. Administrative records and the fact sheets
did not clearly document limit calculations as outlined in the Ammonia Toxicity Policy,
and it was not clear if the policy was consistently applied.
• North Carolina's WQ criteria regulations establish"action levels" (AL) rather than
enforceable numeric criteria for copper, zinc, chloride, iron, and silver. In the RPA
process, if there is a determination that a pollutant will cause, have the reasonable
potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above an"Action Level," an effluent
limit will not be established unless the pollutant is determined to be a"significant
causative factor in whole effluent toxicity." If there is no observed toxicity (i.e., failure of
a WET test), then the permit will only contain a monitoring requirement for the Action
Level pollutant. (See: Implementation of Action Levels for Copper and Zinc in NPDES
Permits, October 25, 2000,North Carolina Division of Water Quality).
• North Carolina's lack of WQS has made it difficult for permit writers to develop NPDES
permits that protect aquatic life and human health. Developing limits for parameters
when sufficiently protective WQS have not been promulgated by the State have been
problematic. In January, 2015, DENR adopted new WQS for metals. For metals that EPA
approves for Clean Water Act purposes, the NPDES permits will contain more
appropriate limits for those specific metals.
• North Carolina does not appear to be consistently including limitations for oil and grease.
Limits were observed in some permits, although administrative records did not
consistently include documentation on the basis for whether or not limits were included.
• For some pollutants, DENR uses its water quality criteria to assess reasonable potential
and develop limits consistent with procedures in EPA's Technical Support Document
(TSD).
• During the core permitting review, it was difficult to ascertain from the fact sheet and file
information what assumptions (mixing conditions, ambient pollutant concentrations, etc.)
were used for the RPA and WQBEL calculations. In discussions with DENR staff, it was
determined that the state generally uses default mixing assumptions for the receiving
water that provide the full critical stream flow for dilution, assume rapid and complete
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 9

•
NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
mixing, and assume zero ambient pollutant concentrations. Using these default conditions
effectively provides the full assimilative capacity of the receiving water for each
discharger. Absent verification that the full assimilative capacity of the stream is actually
available, the state's procedures could result in a finding of no reasonable potential,
where in fact there is a potential concern, or could result in the development of effluent
limits that may not be protective of the applicable water quality standards. It was also
unclear if state was updating the receiving stream flow data or merely using the previous
fact sheet information while renewing the NPDES permits.
• Review of the related administrative record and fact sheets revealed that in some cases no
RPA was done,particularly for renewed permits. Of the 18 permits reviewed as part of
the PQR, the administrative record for two of the permits lacked adequate documentation
for RPA (e.g., Tyson Foods, Inc. (NC0005126) and Spruce Hill (NC0021423)). In cases
where RPA was done, it was completed for all parameters.
North Carolina also utilizes a basin-wide planning approach to coordinate permitting and other
water quality assessment and protection efforts. Under its basin-wide permitting approach, as the
NPDES permits for each basin are developed for issuance/reissuance, there are coordination
meetings with the permit writer, basin leads, and TMDL staff, among others. There is a written
strategy for the basin as well as a spreadsheet listing each discharger within the basin along with
allocations assigned each facility, nutrient limits and monitoring, special conditions, and mass ,
loadings. Based on the information provided, DENR has a comprehensive approach to assessing
cumulative impacts from dischargers in a specific basin. However, little or no information
regarding the implementation of the basin plan was documented in the fact sheets for individual
facilities or contained in the administrative record.
For the permits reviewed, there was an indication on the first page of the fact sheets as to
whether the receiving water was listed as being impaired and on the 303(d) list; however, the fact
sheet did°not necessarily indicate the nature of the impairment, or what pollutants contributed to
the impairment. There was little to no follow-up discussion in the fact sheets and it was difficult
to determine based on information in the record if the effluent limits and conditions adequately
complied with applicable wasteload allocations from TMDLs or addressed the pollutants and
conditions contributing or causing the impairment.
1. Anti-degradation:
, Each State is required to adopt an anti-degradation policy consistent with EPA's anti-degradation
regulations at 40 CFR 131.12. North Carolina's regulations at section 15A NCAC 02B.0201
require all new or expanded surface water discharges to meet anti-degradation requirements. In
general, these procedures require maintenance of existing uses, balancing of benefits and
impacts, and options review. All elements of the anti-degradation analysis, including whether
existing uses are being maintained and whether the degradation is necessary to accommodate
important economic or social development in the area, should be documented in the fact sheet.
The administrative records of the reviewed permits generally did not indicate how DENR has
complied with these requirements. The few anti-degradation analyses that DENR has done are
limited to cost of wastewater discharge and treatment for the NPDES permit applicants. The
alternatives to the direct discharge should be analyzed as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2).
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 10

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
The socio-economic benefit of the proposed or expanded discharges should be clearly shown
with actual or projected benefits.
2. Anti-backsliding:
CWA 402(c), 303(d)(4), and 40 CFR 122(1)restrict the relaxation of final effluent limitations
and the relaxation of standards or conditions contained in existing permits. Anti-backsliding
review is triggered when a permit is renewed, revised, or reissued. The PQR found that anti-
backsliding requirements have not been discussed in the draft permits or in the administrative
records.
3. Mixing Zone and Dilution:
40 CFR 131.13 states that states may, at their discretion, include in their state water quality
standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as mixing
zones, low flows and variances. Such policies are subject to EPA review and approval. DENR's
administrative records reviewed do not discuss the mixing zone, dilution and diffuser-assisted
mixing as required by State regulations contained at 15A NCAC 02b.0203(b).
D. Monitoring and Reporting
40 CFR 122.41(j) requires permittees to periodically evaluate compliance with the effluent
limitations established in their permits and provide the results to the permitting authority.
Monitoring and reporting conditions require the permittee to conduct routine or episodic self-
monitoring of permitted discharges and where applicable, internal processes, and report the
analytical results to the permitting authority with information necessary to evaluate discharge
characteristics and compliance status.
Specifically, 40 CFR 122.44(i)requires NPDES permits to establish, at a minimum, annual
monitoring for all limited parameters sufficient to assure compliance with permit limitations,
including specific requirements for the types of information to be provided and the methods for
the collection and analysis of such samples. In addition, 40 CFR 122.48, requires that permits
specify the type, intervals, and frequency of monitoring sufficient to yield data which are
representative of the monitored activity. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) also require
reporting of monitoring results with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the
discharge.
The permits reviewed generally included appropriate monitoring requirements based on the
facility type, type of discharge and corresponding limit basis. Their requirements appear to be
consistent with the state's monitoring frequencies for specific types of dischargers found in State
regulations 15A NCAC 02B.0508.
1. Sufficiently Sensitive Methods:
40 CFR 122.44(I)(iv) requires testing to be conducted with sufficiently sensitive methods. EPA
recommends that all permittees use methods that enable pollutants to be detected at levels to
demonstrate compliance with permit limits or WQS. Where no approved sufficiently sensitive
method can detect a pollutant at the water quality-based standards level, the most sensitive EPA •
approved method should be used. If the permittee believes that an alternative method should be
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 11

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
used (e.g., due to matrix interference), the permittee should obtain prior approval. Additionally,
standard conditions in both industrial and domestic wastewater permits DENR should require the
use of sufficiently sensitive methods.
The permit quality review revealed that in some cases, administrative records and supporting
documents did not show whether sufficiently sensitive analytical methods were used in analyzing
influent and effluent concentration.
Mercury: North Carolina has a two prong approach for evaluating mercury impairment. First,
North Carolina implements its 2012 mercury TMDL for protection of human health, which is
based on a fish tissue target of 0.3 mg/kg, by requiring permittees with permitted flows
exceeding 2 MGD and discharging significant quantities of mercury (i.e., greater than 1 ng/1 of
mercury in effluent)to submit mercury minimization plans (MMPs). Second,North Carolina
conducts a modified reasonable potential analysis for permittees to exceed the North Carolina
WQS of 12 ng/1, allowing for limited dilution based on the 7Q10 flow of the receiving water
body, but capped at a TBEL equal to 47 ng/l. North Carolina has indicated they plan to evaluate
their mercury WQS at the next Triennial Review. When developing WQBEL, the permitting
authority must ensure that the level of water quality to be achieved by such limits derives from
and complies with all applicable State water quality standards as per 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii).
The administrative records and the fact sheets do not consistently show that the State has applied
its mercury standards of 12 ng/L uniformly. In some permits the State has correctly applied this
standard with a mercury limit of 12 ng/L to ensure the discharge will not contribute to those
existing mercury exceedances. In some permits the State has only applied a limit of 47ng/L to
implement a methyl mercury TMDL. The EPA sent a letter to DENR dated September 6, 2012,
regarding permit recommendations to address statewide mercury impairments, a less stringent
permit limit, such as the 47 ng/L, would only be justified once DENR demonstrates that site-
specific data show that the facility is not causing or contributing to the existing mercury
impairment. For the permits reviewed, insufficient information was available in the
administrative records to support the higher limit for mercury.
E. Standard and Special Conditions
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 require that all NPDES permits, including NPDES general
permits, contain an enumerated list of"standard"permit conditions. Further, the regulations at 40
CFR 122.42 require that NPDES permits for certain categories of dischargers must contain
additional standard conditions. Permitting authorities must include these conditions in NPDES
permits and may not alter or omit any standard condition, unless such alteration or omission
results in a requirement more stringent than required by the federal regulations. In addition to
standard permit conditions, permits may also contain additional requirements that are unique to a
particular permittee or discharger. These case-specific requirements are generally referred to as
"special conditions." Special conditions might include requirements such as: additional
monitoring or special studies such as pollutant management plan or a mercury minimization
plan; best management practices [40 CFR 122.44(k)], or permit compliance schedules [40 CFR
122.47]. Where a permit contains special conditions, such conditions must be consistent with
applicable regulations.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 12

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
DENR has recently updated their standard conditions boilerplate (Parts II and III) that
corresponds to the requirements found in 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42. The updated boilerplate
standard conditions were reviewed; earlier versions did not necessarily contain all the Federal
requirements. In addition, Part IV of the boilerplate contains pretreatment requirements. This
updated attachment was not found in the permit files for all the permits reviewed. Many of the
permits reviewed for North Carolina contained additional narrative requirements (special
conditions) addressing management practices and/or special studies or reports. These special
conditions appeared appropriate for the types of dischargers and permits reviewed.
F. Administrative Process
The administrative process includes documenting the basis of all permit decisions (40 CFR 124.5
and 40 CFR 124.6); coordinating EPA and state review of the draft(or proposed) permit(40
CFR 123.44); providing public notice (40 CFR 124.10); conducting hearings if appropriate (40
CFR 124.11 and 40 CFR 124.12); responding to public comments (40 CFR 124.17); and,
modifying a permit(if necessary) after issuance (40 CFR 124.5). EPA discussed each element of
the administrative process with DENR and reviewed materials from the administrative process as
they related to the core permit review.
DENR staff stated that all public notices are required by law to be published in a local
newspaper. When permits for a particular basin are being developed, DENR contacts the
appropriate environmental groups and other interested parties. North Carolina also maintains a
list of interested parties, stakeholders and environmental groups and sends notices to members of
this list as applicable.
The permit files reviewed contained comments received during the public notice period, and
responses to those comments. Based on the permits reviewed, no significant changes were made
between draft and final permits. However, it is not clear from a review of DENR's administrative
records that significant comments or recommendations were incorporated in their final NPDES
permits.
G. Administrative Record
The administrative record is the foundation that supports the NPDES permit. If EPA issues the
permit, 40 CFR 124.9 identifies the required content of the administrative record for a draft
permit and 40 CFR 124.18 identifies the requirements for a final permit. Authorized state
programs should have equivalent documentation. The record should contain the necessary
documentation to justify permit conditions. At a minimum, the administrative record for a permit
should contain the permit application and supporting data; draft permit; fact sheet or statement of
basis; all items cited in the statement of basis or fact sheet including calculations used to derive
the permit limitations; meeting reports; correspondence between the applicant and regulatory
personnel; all other items supporting the file; final response to comments; and, for new sources
where EPA issues the permit, any environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, or
finding of no significant impact.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 13

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
Current regulations require that fact sheets include information regarding the type of facility or
activity permitted, the type and quantity of pollutants discharged, the technical, statutory, and
regulatory basis for permit conditions,the basis and calculations for effluent limits and
conditions,the reasons for application of certain specific limits, rationales for variances or
alternatives, contact information, and procedures for issuing the final permit. Generally, the
administrative record includes the permit application, the draft permit, any fact sheet or
statement of basis, documents cited in the fact sheet or statement of basis, and other documents
contained in the supporting file for the permit.
Based on the review of the administrative records, the following were not transparent:
• What data were used to assess WQ impacts or to calculate Reasonable Potential Analysis
(RPA) and limit calculations,
• How pollutants of concern are identified,
• What assumptions like dilution, mixing, background concentrations, etc. were made to
calculate WQ calculations,
• How TBELs and WQBELs are compared,
• No discussion of RPA or limits to address state narrative water quality criteria,
• Little or no discussion of anti-backsliding or anti-degradation assessments, and
• Little discussion of WQ impairment and whether the discharge contributes to the
impairment.
1. Documentation of Effluent Limitations:
Permit records for POTWs and industrial facilities should contain comprehensive documentation
of the development of all effluent limitations. Technology-based effluent limits should include
assessment of applicable standards, data used in developing effluent limitations, and actual
calculations used to develop effluent limitations. The procedures implemented for determining
the need for water quality-based effluent limitations as well as the procedures explaining the
basis for establishing, or for not establishing, water quality-based effluent limitations should be
clear and straight forward. The permit writer should adequately document changes from the
.previous permit, ensure draft and final limitations match (unless the basis for a change is
documented), and include all supporting documentation in the permit file.
DENR drafts fact sheets for major NPDES permits, and for some minor NPDES permits.
Adequate fact sheets are not drafted for all facilities, particularly when the permits are renewed.
DENR has no apparent standardized process for developing factsheets.
H. National Topic Areas
Core topic areas are specific aspects of the NPDES permit program that warrant review based on
the specific requirements applicable to the selected topic areas. These topic areas have been
determined to be important on a national level. Core topic areas are reviewed for all state PQRs
and include nutrients, pesticides, pretreatment and stormwater.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 14

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
1. Nutrients
Background:
For more than a decade, both nitrogen and phosphorus pollutions haves consistently ranked as
one of the top causes of degradation of surface waters in the U.S. Since 1998, EPA has worked at
reducing the levels and impacts of nutrient pollution. A key part in this effort has been the
support EPA has provided to the States to encourage the development, adoption and
implementation of numeric nutrient criteria as part of their water quality standards (see the
EPA's National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria). In a 2011 memo to
the EPA regions titled Working in Partnerships with States to Address Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Pollution through use of a Framework for State Nutrient Reductions, EPA announced a
framework for managing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that, in part, relies on the use of
NPDES permits to reduce nutrient loading in targeted or priority watersheds. To assess how
nutrients are addressed in the North Carolina NPDES program, EPA reviewed 15 permits with
nutrients requirements as well as water quality trading program, and supporting administrative
documents.
Program Strengths:
North Carolina has numeric criteria for chlorophyll a. The State has established nutrient
standards for water bodies identified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) and High Quality
Waters {(15A NCAC 02B.0223 and 15A NCAC 02B.0224)}. Session Law 1997-458 adopted
limits for nitrogen and phosphorus. Furthermore,North Carolina has conducted studies to set
phosphorus limits for NSW.
Critical Findings:
North Carolina has chlorophyll a value of 40 µg/L for fresh and saltwater aquatic life; and 15
µg/L for trout waters. Based on responses to the PQR interview questions and a review of
information collected on the nutrient PQR checklist, its apparent chlorophyll-a limits are not
consistently applied in permits. The State's policy for implementing nutrient limits in permits is
unclear based on EPA's review of the State's administrative records for the permits reviewed
during the PQR. This is true particularly for water quality trading partners who discharge to
NSW, and municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities that contribute significant
nitrogen and phosphorus loadings, and urban stormwater sources that discharge into nitrogen and
phosphorus—impaired waters.
2. Pesticides
Background:
On January 7, 2009,the Sixth Circuit vacated the EPA's 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule on Aquatic
/ Pesticides (71 Fed. Reg. 68483, November 27, 2006) and found that point source discharges of
biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue, into waters of the U.S. were
pollutants under the CWA.National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927(6th Circuit,
2009). As a result of the Court's decision to vacate the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, NPDES
permits are required for discharges of biological pesticides and of chemical pesticides that leave a
residue, to waters of the United States. In response to this decision, on April 9, 2009, the EPA
requested a two-year stay of the mandate to provide the EPA time to develop general permits, to
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 15

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
assist NPDES-authorized states to develop their NPDES permits, and to provide outreach and
education to the regulated community. On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted the EPA the
two-year stay of the mandate. On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
granted the EPA's request for an extension to allow more time for pesticide operators to obtain
permits for pesticide discharges into U.S. waters. The court's decision extended the deadline for
when permits would be required from April 9, 2011 to October 31, 2011.
EPA proposed a draft pesticide general permit on June 4, 2010,to cover certain discharges
resulting from pesticide applications in unauthorized states, tribes and territories. The EPA
Regional offices and State NPDES authorities may issue additional general permits or individual
permits, if needed. On October 31, 2011,the EPA issued the final NPDES Pesticide General
Permit (PGP) for Discharges from the Application of Pesticides. The federal PGP applies where
the EPA is the permitting authority. All delegated state NPDES authorities have issued state
pesticide general permits as of April, 2013.
Program Strengths:
Existing North Carolina's state law provides the authority to issue NPDES permits for discharges
from the application of pesticides. DENR issued its pesticide general permit,NCG560000, in
January, 2012.
Critical Findings:
Region 4 reviewed DENR's pesticide general permit with a focus on verifying its consistency
with NPDES program requirements. It was found that this permit meets the requirements to
obtain coverage for all discharges from the application of pesticides including all pesticide use
patterns described in the EPA pesticide permit, all operators of discharges, including decision-
makers and applicators. The review found the permit consistent with CWA requirements.
3. Pretreatment
Background:
The EPA Region 4 industrial pretreatment program routinely performs comprehensive audits of
the state's permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities to assure consistency with the
Clean Water Act, state law,the MOA,the state grant workplan, and all applicable federal
regulations. As part of this PQR, select POTW permits with and without an approved
pretreatment program were reviewed using the PQR checklist for the necessary pretreatment
elements. The EPA did not review any industrial permits with respect to pretreatment language
as the State does not issue NPDES permits to indirect dischargers, rather, local governments are
responsible for issuing these permits. The EPA found some discrepancies pertaining to the
pretreatment language required in 40 CFR 122.42(b) and these are outlined in the Critical
Findings Section. It is noted that this section of the PQR report is not typical of what is seen in
other pretreatment program in other EPA Regions. Region 4's comprehensive audit of the State's
pretreatment program is unique in that the audit reviews a larger universe of permits.
The Comprehensive State Pretreatment Program Audits (CSPPA) include: (1) on-site visits to
all appropriate state offices, including central and field offices; (2) compliance oversight visits to
a statistically significant percentage of publically owned treatment works (POTW)pretreatment
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 16

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
programs and state industrial users; and (3) a desk audit of the legal authorities, formal
procedures, and resources available to the state's industrial pretreatment program.
To date, the CSPPA for NC has not been scheduled. Since the CSPPA takes a more
comprehensive look at the pretreatment program, the EPA's evaluation of the state's
pretreatment permitting activities will be included in that report and provided separately to the
state Director.
Program Strengths:
Based on the limited number of permits reviewed during the PQR, it's apparent that most of the
federal requirements are contained in the State's boilerplate language. A more complete review
of the State's pretreatment program will be determined once the CSPPA is completed.
Critical Findings:
The PQR assessed permit language for four selected permits, all with approved pretreatment
programs,to determine if boilerplate language for the selected permits was included in the permits
having pretreatment programs. The review concluded that boilerplate language was included for
permits requiring pretreatment programs. However, the appropriateness and completeness of the
boilerplate language will be reviewed as part of the previously mentioned pretreatment audit. The
review of these four permits concluded that two notification requirements were not included in the
permit language and pertain to: (1) introduction of pollutants to a POTW (40 CFR 122.42(b)(1)); and
(2) any substantial change in volume or character of pollutants (40 CFR 122.42(b)(2). However,
other specific pretreatment language was included in the permit and this includes: (1)the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.44(j)(2)(i)to develop and submit a local program if in the case
pretreatment becomes necessary ata later date or,alternatively, a reopener clause specifically for
pretreatment; (2)the requirements to identify in terms of character and volume of pollutants any
Significant Industrial Users discharging into the POTW (40 CFR 122.44(j)(1); and (3) permit
contains notification requirements for quantity and quality of effluent to POTW and anticipated
impact of the change in effluent to POTW(40 CFR 122.42(b)(3)).
4. Stormwater
Background:
The NPDES program requires stormwater discharges from certain municipal separate storm
sewer systems (MS4s), industrial activities, and construction sites to be permitted. Generally,
EPA and NPDES-authorized states issue individual permits for medium and large MS4s and
general permits for smaller MS4s, industrial activities, and construction activities.
As part of the PQR, EPA reviewed the City of Charlotte's Phase 1 MS4 permit,NPDES No,
NCS000240. There are numerous Phase II MS4 permittees in NC, and for the PQR the general
stormwater permit applicable to all Phase II municipalities,NCG230000, was reviewed. For
construction stormwater permits, EPA reviewed the general permit,NCG010000, issued to these
entities and did not review any information pertaining to an individual coverage request.NC also
issues a general permit for stormwater from industrial facilities, and for the PQR General Permit
NCG090000 issued to Manufacturing Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products
was reviewed.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 17

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Phase 1 MS4s: There are 11 Phase I MS4s within the State of North Carolina. NPDES Permit
NCS000240 for the City of Charlotte was reviewed for the PQR. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Storm Water Services (CMSWS) is the primary agency responsible for managing the City's
NPDES stormwater permit, its MS4 and the Storm Water Management Plan(SWMP).
In all MS4 jurisdictions, maintenance and improvements to the MS4 system are funded by
stormwater utility fees. Maintenance activities include cleaning inlets of debris and sediment,
maintaining channels to reduce erosion and maximize pollution reduction capabilities, and the
removal of blockages. Improvements to the MS4 system include solving watershed scale
infrastructure problems, channel stabilization, safety improvements, stream habitat enhancement,
water quality enhancement, and resolving flooding problems associated with stormwater
generated from public streets.
The Phase I MS4 permit for the City of Charlotte contains all the required elements of an
effective program including the development of the SWMP, which is routinely updated, typically
calling for completion of development of new SWMP directives within one (1) year and
implementation completed within five (5) years from the effective date of the currently issued
permit renewal. As indicative of large and medium MS4s within the State of North Carolina, the
City's SWMP as required by the permit includes all of the core elements required of the Phase I
permit program.
Program Strengths:
The Region 4 staff reviewed the permit for adherence to the federal MS4 requirements. As
typical of Phase I MS4 programs within the State,North Carolina's overall administration of the
NPDES stormwater program and its permits, continue to meet the EPA's expectations. DENR
staff are proactive in keeping MS4s up to date on State and federal initiatives/policies, and meet
with the MS4s on a scheduled basis. Plans and Annual reports are reviewed and updated as
necessary.
Critical Findings: None
Phase II MS4s: The general permit authorize existing and new point source discharges of
stormwater runoff from the Permittee's MS4 in accordance with the permit conditions which
include the Permittee's approved Stormwater Management Plan. The Stormwater Management
Plan is incorporated by reference, and is an enforceable part of the stormwater NPDES permit. In
the State, there are approximately 109 small MS4s.
Program Strengths:
As with the Phase I program, Region 4 staff reviewed the general permit for Phase II MS4s for
adherence to the federal MS4 requirements. North Carolina's overall administration of the Phase
II NPDES stormwater program and the permits issued continues to meet the EPA's expectations.
DENR staff are aggressive in routinely keeping MS4s up to date on state and federal
•
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 18

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
initiatives/policies, and meet with the MS4s on a scheduled basis. Plans and annual reports are
reviewed and updated as necessary.
Critical Findings: None
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (NCG010000)
In developing the State's Construction General Permit(CGP), DENR determined that it needed a
mechanism to involve the various stakeholders than it had traditionally used in the past for this
permit. Therefore, the State established a Construction General Permit Technical Advisory
Group (CTAG)to work with DENR staff in discussing various options for construction. The
CTAG was made up of 14 members representing regulatory, environmental, and development
interests. The entire group or a subgroup met approximately 14 times during the development of
the permit. The meetings were also open to the public, and many citizens attended. Notes from
all meetings were documented and provided both to the participants and to those on an extended
mailing list. CTAG did not vote on the final recommended draft permit, but the Group did
discuss all significant issues prior to the State's preparation of the draft permit. The permit was
issued on August 11, 2011, and will expire on July 31, 2016. There are approximately 7800
facilities covered by this permit.
Program Strengths:
The State has done an exemplary job in the implementation of its construction program,
particularly in its delegation of authority to local municipalities. In addition, the Division of Land
Resources ensures that under its delegation, all construction sites are inspected routinely and tier
enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance. Contained within the general permit
are several key pollution prevention requirements and conditions that are critical to compliance.
Some of these are the following:
• Construction activities disturbing one or more acres of land will need a local or state
sediment and erosion control plan and coverage under the NPDES General Permit for
stormwater point source discharges,
• Local or state sediment/erosion control plans must be approved before disturbance
occurs,
• Must implement the state or local plan(deviations are a violation of the permit),
• Corrective action shall be taken immediately to control discharge of any sediments off
site or into waters of the state,
• At least once per week, each control measure shall be inspected to ensure that it is
operating correctly and records maintained,
• Control measure inspections should also be made within 24 hours of rain events greater
than 0.50 inches, and
• The quality of all stormwater discharges shall be observed and recorded.
There are some notable enhancements in the current permit over the previous CGP. For example,
ground cover is now required within seven(7) days of temporary or permanent stopping of work
for all perimeter dikes, swales, ditches, perimeter slopes, and all slopes steeper than 3:1. For all
other areas, ground cover would be required within 14 days. The permit also requires added
protections for projects draining to all High Quality Waters. Included in the permit is improved
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 19

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
language on regarding the installation, implementation, and maintenance BMPs. The permit also
requires a 50 foot setback requirement for stock piles, and storage of land clearing, demolition
debris, construction and domestic waste, and hazardous or toxic waste on construction sites. In
addition, some key definitions had been added, along with clarifying language to other Sections
of the permit.
Thirty five local governments rely on North Carolina's Division of Land Resources Erosion and
Sediment Control Program, 43 local governments rely on a county delegated Soil and Erosion
Control (S&EC)program and 10 are delegated by DENR's Division of Land Resources to
implement a the S&EC program. The Erosion and Sediment Control Program whether
implemented by the state or a state delegated program effectively meets the requirements of the
Construction Site Runoff Controls by permitting and controlling development activities
disturbing one or more acres of land surface and those activities less than one acre that are part of
a larger common plan of development. This program is authorized under the Sediment pollution
Control Act of 1973 and Chapter 4 of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code. This
program includes procedures for public input, sanctions to ensure compliance, requirements for
construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control practices,
review of site plans which incorporates consideration of potential water quality impacts, and
procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures.
Critical Findings:"
The permits reviewed appear to include effluent limits within the requirements to develop a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). It is important to distinguish between the
effluent limits in the permit, which DENR is responsible for developing, and the discharger's
SWPPP, which is the documentation the permittee uses to demonstrate compliance with effluent
limits in the permit. For enhanced transparency,the EPA recommends that effluent limits be
included in a separate section of the permit from the SWPPP requirements.
In addition, the permits reviewed appear to be missing many of the non-numeric effluent limit
requirements promulgated in 2009 in the Construction & Development Effluent Limitation
Guidelines (C&D Rule) at 40 CFR 450.21. It is unclear whether the permit is relying on the
State's Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. In the next permit cycle,the
EPA recommends that the permit include requirements from the C&D Rule as enforceable limits.
Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity
DENR issues sector by sector industrial stormwater general permits depending upon the
industrial categories in each sector. One such sector permit, Manufacturing Paints, Varnishes,
Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products,NCG090000, was selected by EPA for this PQR. The
permit was issued on October 25, 2012 with an effective date of November 1, 2012. The permit
expires on October 31, 2017.
This permit requires coverage for discharges associated with the following activities: (1)
establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture of paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, and
allied products [standard industrial classification(SIC) 2851]; and (2) Stormwater point source
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 20

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
discharges from industrial activities deemed by the Division of Water Quality to be similar to
these operations in the process, or the discharges, or theexposure of raw materials, intermediate
products, by-products, products, or waste products.
Program Strengths:
Region 4 reviewed DENR's NCG090000 with a focus on verifying its consistency with NPDES
program requirements. The review found that this permit meets the federal requirements to
obtain coverage for all stormwater related discharges associated with manufacturing paints,
varnishes, lacquers, enamels, and allied products.
Critical Findings: none
IV. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
A. Whole Effluent Toxicity
Background:
Regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)require several factors to be considered when determining
whole effluent toxicity(WET) reasonable potential (RP). Among these factors, WET monitoring
data used should be representative of the effluent discharge and consideration of species
sensitivity, including ensuring that effluent variability is considered and addressed. Permit
writers are supposed to monitor WET with three species (plant, invertebrate and vertebrate) or at
least two if no plant test is available (i.e., invertebrate, vertebrate)to determine the most sensitive
species. 40 CFR 122.48(b) requires permits to establish monitoring requirements to yield data
representative of the monitored activity, and 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)requires that monitoring
requirements ensure compliance with permit limitations. Monitoring frequencies are based on the
nature of the facility, similar facilities and, if applicable, existing and/or previous permit's
monitoring results or compliance history.
As part of the PQR, EPA reviewed 18 permits and fact sheets to see if the permit requirements
adequately and correctly implemented the WET permit requirements of the water quality
standards. North Carolina has identified biological integrity as the cause of impairment in its
lakes in its 2012 CWA 305(b) report. The review demonstrated that the majority of the permits
have either acute or chronic toxicity monitoring requirements.
North Carolina continues to use only control plus one effluent concentration when conducting
their WET tests and requires follow-up testing using multiple concentrations upon a test failure.
This approach is inconsistent with WET testing methods contained in 40 CFR 136, which
requires WET tests be conducted using five effluent concentrations plus a control. However,
subsequent to the PQR,North Carolina submitted the appropriate documentation where the State
received EPA's approval for the Alternate WET Test procedure. It is noted that North Carolina
can statistically analyze the WET test results using the control plus one effluent concentration as
long as they are using the statistical approach the EPA recommended in 2010.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 21

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
Program Strengths:
North Carolina requires permittees to conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using
protocols defined in the North Carolina Procedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology
for Determining Acute Toxicity in a Single Effluent Concentration". North Carolina is
commended for requiring an effluent concentration of 90 percent for evaluating acute mortality.
In addition, the State is very prescriptive in the permits to require the permittee to perform the
test using representative samples collected during the months of February, May, August and
November. Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits,
then monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed.
Critical Findings:
The permits reviewed required either acute or chronic WET testing but not both. The
administrative record did not demonstrate why some facilities were given acute toxicity
monitoring requirements and why other facilities were given chronic toxicity monitoring
requirements. When no WET limits were required,the fact sheets or administrative records did
not document the reasons for the absence of WET limits. The reasons for determination of
frequency of monitoring toxicity were not clear. In addition, it was not apparent from the permits
reviewed that North Carolina is meeting the minimum WET test methods requirements and this
is a significant problem; however, after further consultation North Carolina was able to provide
the necessary documentation where EPA approved the State's Alternate WET Test procedure.
B. Water Quality Trading
Background:
A Water Quality Trading (WQT) policy was published by EPA on January 13, 2003. The
purpose of this policy is to encourage states, interstate agencies and tribes to develop and
implement water quality trading programs for nutrients, sediments and other pollutants where
opportunities exist to achieve water quality improvements at reduced costs. More specifically,
the policy is intended to encourage voluntary trading programs that facilitate implementation of
TMDLs, reduce the costs of compliance with CWA regulations, establish incentives for
voluntary reductions and promote watershed-based initiatives. As part of the PQR, the EPA
reviewed the WQT for the Tar-Pamlico Basin.
EPA recognizes that nutrient trading can be a useful tool to allow for cost-effective pollution
reduction measures while meeting water quality obligations. The WQT agreement in the Tar-
Pamlico Basin allows the Tar-Pamlico Association's dischargers to find more cost-effective
ways to collectively meet their nutrient loading cap by allowing facilities that were better able to
remove nutrients at a given time to complete the changes needed to make reductions toward the
collective limit. The agreement also provides a more cost-effective nutrient reduction alternative
if the Association is unable to meet its cap -payments for agricultural BMPs that are documented
to be more cost effective than retrofits or treatment modifications during expansion. In the Tar-
Pamlico Basin,the State currently provides for two different forms of trading to help meet
pollutant reduction goals for the estuary.
First, the State, the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association, the Environmental Defense Fund and the
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation signed an agreement in 1989 for an innovative nutrient trading
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 22

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
program between point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The agreement, which is currently in
its third phase, calls for the Association that includes over 98% of the waste water dischargers in
the basin to either reduce their nutrient loading to the estuary or, if they exceeded an annual
collective loading cap, to fund agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) through the
state's existing Agriculture Cost Share Program.
A second form of trading in the Tar-Pamlico occurs between nonpoint sources through the
purchase of off-site nutrient offset credits by developers from third-party providers to achieve
stormwater runoff loading requirements on their development projects. The option of purchasing
these nutrient credits allows developers more flexibility in meeting the runoff requirements of
their project while insuring that nutrient loads to the estuary do not increase.
Program Strengths:
To date, due to the success of the Tar-Pamlico Association at meeting their nutrient caps,the
point-to-non-point source nutrient trading provisions provided under the Tar-Pam Nutrient
Strategy have not been needed. They have, however, resulted in Association funding for BMP
implementation and the provisions remain in place to allow for cost-effective nutrient reductions.
Critical Findings:
The reviewed permit and fact sheet did not show any calculation to explain how an individual
allocation was to be determined as a share of the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association. As per 40 CFR
124.56(a), the fact sheet should include such information. This information is especially
important because it appears that enforcement of the nutrient allocation is only through the
Association's permit, not through permits for individual facilities. A reasonable potential
analyses for nutrients and other parameters were not documented in the permit file. This is
inconsistent with 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1).
V. ACTION ITEMS
This section provides a summary of the main findings of the review and provides proposed
action items to improve DENR NPDES permit programs. This list of proposed action items will
serve as the basis for ongoing discussions between EPA Region 4 and North Carolina as well as
between EPA Region 4 and EPA HQ. These discussions should focus on eliminating program
deficiencies to improve overall performance by enabling good quality, defensible permits issued
in a timely fashion.
The proposed action items are divided into three categories to identify the priority that should be
placed on each Item and facilitate discussions between Regions and states.
• Critical Findings (Category One) - Most Significant: Proposed action items will
address a current deficiency or noncompliance with respect to a federal regulation.
• Recommended Actions (Category Two) -Recommended: Proposed action items will
address a current deficiency with respect to EPA guidance or policy.
• Suggested Practices (Category Three) - Suggested: Proposed action items are listed
as recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the state's NPDES permit
program.
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 23

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
The critical findings and recommended actions proposed should be used to augment the existing
list of"follow up actions" currently established as an indicator performance measure and tracked
under EPA's Strategic Plan Water Quality Goals or may serve as a roadmap for modifications to
the Region's program management.
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application
The DENR permits, fact sheets, and files that were reviewed do not provide an adequate level of
facility information on which to base permit requirements. Permit applications for major
dischargers meet requirements for timing and completeness. The application forms for minor
facilities are not EPA forms, and do not contain all of the information required by regulations.
Proposed Action Items to help DENR strengthen its NPDES permit program include the
following:
• Ensure all application forms comply with 40 CFR 122 Subpart B. (Category 1)
• Use checklists or other QA/QC procedures to ensure permit files/records applications
have all required elements, including complete fact sheets and administrative record
components. (Category 3)
• Require use of sufficiently sensitive analytical methods and ensure method detection
limits are documented in application forms. (Category 2)
B. Technology-based Effluent Limitations
For the most part, the DENR permits reviewed properly implement TBELs for municipal and
non-municipal facilities. In many cases, BOD effluent limits are more stringent than those
required by the secondary treatment standards. Proposed Action Items to help DENR strengthen
its NPDES permit program include the following:
• A more complete discussion of applicable ELGs in the fact sheet would be helpful
and would provide transparency to the public. While ELGs appeared to be correctly
applied in most permits, additional discussion on the level of treatment like NSPS,
BAT, BPT, or BCT should be contained in the fact sheet. In addition, for effluent
, limits established using production or flow, the basis for those values and associated
calculations should be contained in the fact sheet. (Category 2)
C. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
The fact sheets reviewed did not provide an adequate narrative of the process DENR uses to
determine if WQBELs are required. Proposed Action Items to help DENR strengthen its NPDES
permit program include the following:
• Review of the administrative record and fact sheets revealed that the RPA was not
adequately done for many permits to show limits which would be protective of water
quality. DENR should develop procedures to ensure that permit writers consistently
follow to demonstrate how effluent limits are protective of WQS and comply with
CWA § 301(b)(1)(C). (Category 1)
• Fact sheets should describe how pollutants of concern are determined (DMRs,
application data, special studies, TBELs, TMDLs, etc.) (40 CFR 124.56). (Category
2)
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 24

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
• Any assumptions used in mixing zone calculations should be included in the fact
sheet. In all cases,the critical conditions used in the RPA and limit calculations
should represent actual conditions and actual updated flow; and must ensure that
applicable water quality standards are achieved (40 CFR 124.56 and 122.44).
(Category 1)
• The fact sheet should discuss any parameters limited by WQBELs in the previous
permit for which no effluent limits are in place in the current permit. For these
dropped effluent limitations, information should be included to demonstrate that anti-
backsliding provisions are satisfied (40 CFR 124.46(a), 122.44). (Category 2)
• For those permits where an applicable TMDL has been developed, a more thorough
discussion of how the TMDL requirements are, or are not, applicable and
incorporated into the permit should take place (40 CFR 124.56(a), 122.44(d)(2)).
(Category 2)
Anti-degradation Analyses:
• The administrative records for 7 of the 18 permits reviewed did not indicate that anti-
degradation analyses were conducted. The administrative records for the permits
lacking adequate anti-degradation analyses are: Coats America, Inc. (NC0004243),
Spruce Pine WWTP (NC0021423), Invista, S.A.R.L. (NC0001112), Tyson Foods,
Inc. (NC0005126), PCS Phosphate, Inc. (NC0003255), Littleton WWTP
(NC0025691), and Pinetop WWT (NC0020435). The alternatives to the direct
discharge should be analyzed as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). DENR
should develop procedures so that these requirements are met. (40 CFR 131.12).
(Category 1)
Anti-backsliding:
• The administrative records should document the basis for anti-backsliding (40 CFR
124.56(a)). (Category 2)
D. Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring and reporting requirements in the permits reviewed generally appeared to be
consistent with program requirements. Proposed Action Items to help DENR strengthen its
NPDES permit program include the following:
• Sufficiently sensitive EPA approved analytical methods should be used. (Category 2)
• The administrative records should document how the facilities comply with North
Carolina's two-prong approach for evaluating mercury limits in permits. (Category 3)
E. Special and Standard Conditions
The standard conditions reviewed were consistent with federal requirements, and the special
conditions appeared to be appropriate and reasonably documented. Proposed Action Items to
help DENR strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:
• Ensure that the recently updated NPDES Standard Conditions boilerplate is included
as a part of all permits and in all administrative files. (40 CFR 122.41). (Category 1)
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 25

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
F. Administrative Process (including public notices)
The administrative processes were not consistent with federal requirements and for those draft
permits that received public comments, incomplete responses were found in the central files
indicating how, if any, permit conditions changed as a result of public comment. Proposed
Action Items to help DENR strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:
• Encourage DENR to provide clarity in the Administrative Record on how comments
received during the public comment process was addressed in the Final permit or
whether the comment was not considered significant to warrant a change. This
demonstrates transparency in the permitting process. (Category 1)
G. Documentation (including fact sheet)
The fact sheets reviewed did not provide sufficient information to adequately determine if the
necessary effluent limits are contained in the permit, how WQBELs and TBELs are calculated,
and if the permit complies with TMDL requirements and basin strategies, among other items.
Proposed Action Items to help DENR strengthen its NPDES permit program include the
following:
• Develop a fact sheet template that includes all the requirements found in 40 CFR
124.8. (Category 1)
• Include in relevant fact sheets additional discussion of how the anti-backsliding
requirements at 40 CFR 122.44(1)were satisfied. (Category 2)
• EPA recommends that DENR include in the fact sheet or permit file a comparison of
previous effluent limits and new effluent limits as well as a discussion on the
compliance history of the facility. (Category 3)
• Have a more thorough discussion in the fact sheet to ensure that facility
categorization information clearly addresses whether a facility or discharge is a new
or existing source where applicable. (Category 3)
• Explain what data was used to assess water quality impacts and in conducting the
RPA and effluent limitations calculations. (Category 2)
• Clearly identify how pollutants of concern are determined. (Category 2)
• Provide a clear comparison of TBELs and WQBELs to ensure the more stringent
limit is placed in the NPDES permit. (Category 2)
• There was little discussion in the fact sheet concerning the basin-wide strategy, load
allocations, or discussions with other DENR groups in the development of the
NPDES permits. (Category 3)
• Fact sheets should include more thorough discussions of reasonable potential or
effluent limits to address state narrative criteria. (Category 2)
• EPA recommends a more comprehensive explanation of any applicable water quality
impairments and if the discharge contributes to the impairment. (Category 2)
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 26

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
H. National Topic Areas
Proposed Actions Items for core topic areas are provided below.
1. Nutrients
North Carolina has numeric criteria for chlorophyll a. The State has established nutrient
standards for water bodies identified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) and High Quality
Waters. The State has adopted chlorophyll a value of 40 tg/L for fresh and saltwater aquatic life;
and 15 µg/L for trout waters. Effluent monitoring for nitrogen-based or phosphorous-based is
placed in permits for facilities that treat nutrient bearing wastewaters. Proposed Action Items to
help North Carolina strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:
• Require monitoring for both nitrogen and phosphorus and not just the limiting
nutrient. (Category 3)
• Provide documentation in the Fact Sheet on how the chlorophyll a criteria are applied
consistently in permits. (Category 2)
2. Pesticides
On October 31, 2011, the EPA issued the final NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for
Discharges from the Application of Pesticides. The federal PGP applies where the EPA is the
permitting authority. DENR issued its pesticide general permit and is effective since January 1,
2012. There are no obstacles in state law preventing the state NPDES permitting authority from
fully implementing the pesticide permit requirements. The Pesticides General Permit appears to
be consistent with program requirements. No action items are proposed based on this PQR.
3. Pretreatment
The EPA Region 4 will be conducting a Comprehensive State Pretreatment Program Audits in
North Carolina within the next two years, This Audit will supplement the critical findings and
action items determined during the PQR. Proposed Action Items to help North Carolina
strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:
• Inclusion in the permits the notification requirements for introduction of pollutants to a
POTW (40 CFR 122.42(b)(1)) and any substantial change in volume or character of
pollutants (40 CFR 122.42(b)(2). (Category 1)
4. Stormwater
North Carolina's overall administration of the NPDES stormwater program and its permits,
continue to operate at or above EPA's level of expectations. The EPA commends DENR for
establishing stormwater permit language that is clear, specific, measureable and enforceable.
DENR staff are proactive in keeping MS4s up to date on State and federal initiatives/policies,
and meet with the MS4s on a scheduled basis. Plans and Annual reports are reviewed and
updated as necessary. Proposed Action Items to help North Carolina strengthen its NPDES
permit program include the following:
• DENR should separate effluent limits in permits from requirements to develop
SWPPP. (Category 3)
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 27

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
• Permits appear to missing many of the non-numeric effluent limit requirements
promulgated in 2009 in the Construction& Development Effluent Limitation
Guidelines (C&D Rule) at 40 CFR 450.21. It is unclear whether the permit is relying
on the State's Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. In the next
permit cycle, the EPA recommends that the permit include requirements from the
C&D Rule as enforceable limits. (Category 2)
I. Regional Topic Areas
Proposed action items for special focus areas are provided below.
1. Whole Effluent Toxicity(WET) Testing
North Carolina requires permittees to conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using
protocols defined in the North Carolina Procedure Document entitled"Pass/Fail Methodology
for Determining Acute Toxicity in a Single Effluent Concentration. Proposed action items to
help North Carolina strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:
• Clearly document in permit fact sheets why some facilities were given acute toxicity
monitoring requirements and others were given chronic toxicity monitoring
requirements and how this is representative of the permitted effluent discharge.
(Category 1)
• When no WET limits are required, the fact sheets should document the reasons for
the absence of WET limits. (Category 1)
• Clearly document that the most sensitive species was selected when determining
reasonable potential and compliance with permit's WET limits. (Category 1)
• Conduct WET tests consistent with EPA WET test methods (2002)promulgated at 40
CFR Part 136 including all minimum test acceptability criteria (TAC) for a valid
WET test(i.e., conduct WET tests with five effluent concentrations plus a control). It
appears that North Carolina is only conducting WET tests with five effluent
concentrations plus a control when testing at a single effluent concentration fails the
WET test. (Category 1)
2. Water Quality Trading
EPA recognizes water quality trading as a useful tool for implementing cost-effective pollution
reduction measures while meeting water quality obligations, especially for nutrients. The water
quality trading agreement in the Tar-Pamlico Basin allows the Association's dischargers to find
more cost-effective ways to collectively meet their nutrient loading cap by allowing facilities that
were better able to remove nutrients at a given time to complete the changes needed to make
reductions toward the collective limit. The agreement also provides a more cost-effective
nutrient reduction alternative if the Association is unable to meet its cap - payments for
agricultural BMPs that are documented to be more cost effective than retrofits or treatment
modifications during expansion. Proposed action items to help North Carolina strengthen its
NPDES permit program include the following:
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 28

NPDES PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW
• Provide calculations in the fact sheet to explain how an individual allocation was
determined as a share of the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association. As per 40 CFR
124.56(a), the fact sheet should include such information and the permit for each
facility should include enforceable individual limits as well as any group cap on
loads. In addition,permit provisions should be included regarding the conditions
under which an individual permit would be applicable. (Category 1)
• Provide documentation in the administrative record when concluding that no
reasonable potential exists for nutrients and other parameters to cause or contribute to
an impairment. (Category 2)
•
Final—NC PQR Report—December 2015 29