NC0024147_Comments_20221215 (2)

SOUTHERN 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
LAW
CENTER
October 21, 2022
VIA Electronic Mail
Gary Perlmutter
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Re: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on NPDES Wastewater
Draft Permit NC0024147, Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments, on behalf of
Haw River Assembly and Cape Fear River Watch, regarding the draft renewal National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit NC0024147, issued by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality ("the Department") to the City of Sanford for the
operation of its Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant.1
The draft permit allows the City of Sanford to discharge wastewater contaminated with
1,4-dioxane and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") from its wastewater treatment
plant into downstream drinking water supplies in the Cape Fear River Basin.2 Sanford discharges
into the Deep River, a class C water that is approximately seventeen miles upstream of the city's
own drinking water intake, which provides the drinking water for over 50,000 people in Sanford,
Goldston, Lee County, and parts of Chatham County.3 Adding to the danger of Sanford's
pollution, the City of Sanford has also announced intentions to expand its drinking water services
to provide drinking water to the cities of Pittsboro, Fuquay-Varina, and Holly Springs.4 Further
downstream, the Cape Fear River Basin and those who rely upon it are already overburdened
with harmful PFAS and 1,4-dioxane contamination.5 Communities in New Hanover, Brunswick
' N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft NPDES Permit NCO024147 (Sept. 20, 2022) [hereinafter "Big Buffalo Draft
Permit"].
2 See Sanford, NPDES Permit Application No.NC0024147 — Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant (Mar. 2022),
at Tab H [hereinafter "Sanford Permit Application"].
I Big Buffalo Draft Permit, supra note 1 at 2.
4 See Taylor Heeden, Pittsboro Board Discusses Funding for Water Partnership with Sanford, CHATHAM NEWS &
RECORD (Jan. 30, 2022), hlt2s:Hchapelboro.com/town-square/pittsboro-board-discusses-funding-for-water-
partnership-with-sanford Attachment 1; Interbasin Transfer, FUQUAY-VARINA, N.C., hit2s://www.fuquqy-
varina.org/I 098/lnterbasin-Transfer (last visited Oct. 20, 2022), Attachment 2; Rob Fox, Water Needs, SUBURBAN
LIVING (Dec. 17, 2021), hops://hollyssprings.suburbanlivinamag.com/water-needs/, Attachment 3.
'N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, 1,4-Dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Ongoing
Screening, Source Identification, and Abatement Verification Study 2 (Feb. 2017), available at
https://deq.nc.gov/media/8625/download; PFAS Contamination in the U.S., ENV'T WORKING GROUP (June 2022),
hLtps://www.ewg.org/interactive-mgps/Tfas contamination/.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

and Pender counties, which include the cities of Fayetteville and Wilmington, for example,
repeatedly experience elevated amounts of these chemicals in their drinking water supply.' If
Sanford moves forward with its intention to sell water to several additional communities, the
drinking water of more than 135,000 North Carolinians will be polluted by Sanford's PFAS and
1,4-dioxane contamination, and that pollution could potentially spread to the Neuse Rivera
The Department has the authority and responsibility to prevent this pollution. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") PFAS Strategic Roadmap recently affirmed that
"existing NPDES authorities" can be used to "reduce discharges of PFAS at the source."8 EPA's
plan further confirms that the Clean Water Act pretreatment program can be used to control
sources of PFAS, and the agency intends to "require pretreatment programs to include source
control."9 While EPA's guidance focuses on PFAS, the same mechanisms exist for 1,4-dioxane.
North Carolina communities continue to suffer from exposure to these chemicals, and the
Department must act now to stop PFAS and 1,4-dioxane from entering our rivers, streams, and
drinking water supplies. The Department must use its existing authority under the Clean Water
Act to implement limits and mandate that Sanford use its pretreatment authority to ensure these
harmful chemicals are kept out of our state's waterways.
I. Sanford's wastewater plant releases PFAS, a class of chemicals known to cause
harm to human health and the environment.
In Sanford's permit application materials, the city includes sampling results from 2019
and 2020 indicating that both the influent (water coming into the plant) and effluent (discharge
from the plant) contain PFAS.10 PFAS have been recorded in the wastewater treatment plant at
levels as high as 4,026 parts per trillion ("ppt") and data shows that these chemicals make their
way into Sanford's wastewater discharges. I I
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals manufactured and used broadly by industry
since the 1940s.12 PFAS pose a significant threat to human health at extremely low
concentrations. Two of the most studied PFAS—perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
6 See, e.g., Fayetteville Public Works Commission, 2021 Water Quality Report (Jan. 2022), at 9-10, available at
https://www.faypwc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-WQR-2.pdf; Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, 2021
Drinking Water Quality Report (2022), at 17-20, available at
hLtps://www.cfpua.org/ArchiveCenterNiewFile/Item/798.
7 Letter from Adam Mitchell, Town Manager Fuquay-Varina to Stanley Meiburg, Chairman N.C. Env't Mgmt.
Comm'n (Sept. 1, 2020), Attachment 4.
a U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024 14 (Oct. 2021),
htt2s://perma.cc/LK4U-RLBH [hereinafter "EPA PFAS Roadmap"].
9 Id.
io Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
11 Id.
" Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four Perfluoroalkyl Substances, 87 Fed. Reg. 36,848, 36,849
(June 21, 2022); Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS, U.S. ENV'T
PROT. AGENCY, https://www.epa.aoy/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
(last visited Sept. 12, 2022).

perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS")—are bioaccumulative and highly persistent in humans.13
PFOA and PFOS have been shown to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney
and testicular cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis,
obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels, delayed puberty, and
lower birth weight and size.14 Because of its impacts on the immune system, PFAS can also
exacerbate the effects of Covid-19.15 Studies show that exposure to mixtures of different PFAS
can worsen these health effects.16 Given these harms, EPA in June 2022 established interim
updated lifetime health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water of 0.004 and 0.02 ppt,
respectively.) 7
Other PFAS are similarly harmful.)$ This June, EPA set a final lifetime health advisory
for GenX in drinking water of 10 ppt.19 Numerous states have acknowledged the dangers of
other PFAS compounds and proposed or finalized drinking water standards for various PFAS at
20 ppt and lower.20
13 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,849; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (PFOA) CASRN 335-67-1 (June 2022), at 3-4, available at
hops://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfoa-2022.pdf, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim
Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) CASRN 1763-23-1 (June 2022), at 3-4,
available at hlWs://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfos-2022.pdf
14 Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENv'T. HEALTH
PERSP. 5, A 107 (May 2015); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS: Fact Sheet for
Communities, at 1-2 (June 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/drinking_
water-ha-pfas-factsheet-communities.pdf.
15 See Lauren Brown, Insight: PFAS, Covid-19, and Immune Response —Connecting the Dots, BLOOMBERG LAw
(July 13, 2020, 4:00 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/insight-pfas-covid-l9-and-
immune-response-connecting-the-dots?context--article-related.
" Emma V. Preston et al., Prenatal Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Maternal and Neonatal
Thyroid Function in the Project Viva Cohort: A Mixtures Approach, 139 ENV'T INT'L 1 (2020),
h1�2s://perma.cc/DJK3-87SN.
17 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,848-49.
18 U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls (May 2021), available at
h12s://perma.cc/AHF7-RLQD; see also U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Technical Fact Sheet: Drinking Water Health
Advisories for Four PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, GenX chemicals, and PFBS) (June 2022), Attachment 5.
19 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,848-49.
20 See Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), INTEGRAL CORP., hLtps://www.integral-corp.com/pfas/ (last
visited Sept. 12, 2022).

PFAS are also harmful to wildlife and the environment. The chemicals have been shown
to cause damaging effects in fish'21 amphibians,22 mollusks '23 and other aquatic invertebrates24_
resulting in developmental and reproductive impacts, behavioral changes, adverse effects to
livers, disruption to endocrine systems, and weakened immune systems.25 Moreover, PFAS are
extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment, can travel long distances, and bio-
accumulate in organisms.26 PFAS have been found in fish tissue, and the primarily low-income
and minority communities that rely heavily on subsistence fishing have been found to have
21 Chen et al., Perfluorobutanesulfonate Exposure Causes Durable and Transgenerational Dysbiosis of Gut
Microbiota in Marine Medaka, 5 ENv'T SCI. & TECH LETTERS 731-38 (2018); Chen et al., Accumulation
of Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) and Impairment of Visual Function in the Eyes of Marine Medaka After
a LifeCycle Exposure, 201 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1-10 (2018); Du et al., Chronic Effects of Water -Borne PFOS
Exposure on Growth, Survival and Hepatotoxicity in Zebrafish: A Partial Life -Cycle Test, 74 CHEMOSPHERE 723-29
(2009); Hagenaars et al., Structure Activity Relationship Assessment of Four Perfluorinated Chemicals Using a
Prolonged Zebrafish Early Life Stage Test, 82 CHEMOSPHERE 764-72 (2011); Huang et al., Toxicity, Uptake
Kinetics and Behavior Assessment in Zebrafish Embryos Following Exposure
to Perfluorooctanesulphonicacid (PFOS), 98 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 139-47 (2010); Jantzen et al., PFOS, PFNA,
and PFOA Sub -Lethal Exposure to Embryonic Zebrafish Have Different Toxicity Profiles in terms of
Morphometrics, Behavior and Gene Expression, 175 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 160-70 (2016); Liu et al., The Thyroid -
Disrupting Effects of Long -Term Perfluorononanoate Exposure on Zebrafish (Danio rerio),
20 ECOTOXICOLOGY 47-55 (2011); Chen et al., Multigenerational Disruption of the Thyroid Endocrine System in
Marine Medaka after a Life -Cycle Exposure to Perfluorobutanesulfonate, 52 ENv'T SCI. & TECH. 4432-39
(2018); Rotondo et al., Environmental Doses of Perfluorooctanoic Acid Change the Expression of Genes in Target
Tissues of Common Carp, 37 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 942-48 (2018).
" Ankley et al., Partial Life -Cycle Toxicity and Bioconcentration Modeling of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in the
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens), 23 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2745 (2004); Cheng et al., Thyroid
Disruption Effects of Environmental Level Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS) in Xenopus Laevis,
20 ECOTOxICOLOGY 2069-78 (2011); Lou et al., Effects
of Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Perfluorobutanesulfonate on the Growth and Sexual Development of
Xenopus Laevis, 22 ECOTOxICOLOGY 1133-44 (2013).
" Liu et al., Oxidative Toxicity of Perfluorinated Chemicals in Green Mussel and Bioaccumulation Factor
Dependent Quantitative Structure -Activity Relationship, 33 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2323-32 (2014); Liu et
al., Immunotoxicity in Green Mussels under Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Exposure: Reversible Response and
Response Model Development, 37 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 1138-45 (2018).
" Houde et al., Endocrine -Disruption Potential of Perfluoroethylcyclohexane Sulfonate (PFECHS) in Chronically
Exposed Daphnia Magna, 218 ENv'T POLLUTION 950-56 (2016); Liang et al., Effects of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
on Immobilization, Heartbeat, Reproductive and Biochemical Performance of Daphnia Magna,
168 CHEMOSPHERE 1613-18 (2017); Ji et al., Oxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates (Daphnia Magna and Moina Macrocopa) and Fish (Oryzias Latipes), 27 ENv'T
TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2159 (2008); MacDonald et al., Toxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid to Chironomus Tentans, 23 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2116 (2004).
" See supra notes 20-23.
16What are PFAS?, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, https://www.atsdr.cdc.goy/pfas/health-
effects/overview.html (last visited Oct. 19, 2022); see also Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 12.
al

elevated PFAS levels in their blood.27 Due to these harms, EPA has published draft
recommended freshwater aquatic life criteria for PFOA and PFOS.28
In 2019, sampling of Sanford's influent showed levels of total PFAS at concentrations
between 147 ppt and 4,026 ppt.29 The city sampled its influent again in 2020, recording
concentrations of total PFAS reaching up to 2,718 ppt.30 As staggering as these results are, the
full scope of the pollution is likely even greater as influent data often underestimates PFAS
levels in the wastewater plant's effluent. Indeed, studies have found, there can be a "substantial
increase" in specific PFAS after treatment, and the "degradation of precursor compounds is a
significant contributor to PFAS contamination in the environment. ,31
Because PFAS cannot be removed by conventional wastewater treatment processes, these
toxic chemicals make it into Sanford's discharge. In 2020, the city recorded concentrations of
total PFAS in its discharge ranging between 62.17 ppt and 399.43 ppt.32 Sanford's discharge
contains two particularly harmful PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, at concentrations as high
as 15.2 ppt (3,800 times EPA's health advisory) and 14.3 ppt (715 times EPA's health advisory),
respectively.
Even though Sanford only included sampling data from 2019 and 2020, it is almost
certain these PFAS discharges have continued. Sanford receives wastewater from 11 Significant
Industrial Users33 that engage in a variety of industrial processes, including some known or
suspected to be associated with PFAS.34 For example, Sanford receives industrial wastewater
from the following likely sources of PFAS contamination:
27 Patricia A. Fair et al., Perfluoralkyl Substances (PFASs) in Edible Fish Species from Charleston Harbor and
Tributaries, South Carolina, United States: Exposure and Risk Assessment, 171 ENv'T. RES. 266 (April
2019); Chloe Johnson, Industrial chemicals in Charleston Harbor taint fish — and those who eat them, POST &
COURIER (June 4, 2022), https://www.postandcourier.com/enviromnent/industrial-chemicals-in-charleston-harbor-
taint-fish-and-those-who-eat-them/article_b2b 14506-bc 19-11 ec-83 e5-7f2a8322d624.html.
28 Draft Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS), 85 Fed. Reg. 26,199, 26,200 (May 3, 2022).
29 Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
30 Id.
31 Ulrika Eriksson, et al., Contribution ofprecursor compounds to the release ofper- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFASs) from waste water treatment plants (WWTPs), 61 J. ENVIRON. Sci. 80 (2017); see also Mich. Dep't of Env't,
Great Lakes, and Energy, Summary Report: Initiatives to Evaluate the Presence of PFAS in Municipal Wastewater
and Associated Residuals (Sludge/Biosolids) in Michigan, at 9-10, https://perma.cc/C2Z8-DT99.
32 Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
33 N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NCO024147 1 (Sept. 8, 2022) [hereinafter
"Sanford Permit Factsheet"]; Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at 20-30.
" Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at 20-30.
5

Facility
Name
Caterpillar
Boone
Trail
Caterpillar
Womack
Hydro
Tube
Moen
Trion
STI
polymer
Organic
Industry
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Chemicals,
Category
Finishing -
Finishing -
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Plastics, &
Coatings
Coatings
- Coatings
- Coatings
- Coatings
Synthetic
Fibers
Average
Daily
Volume of
Wastewater
27,000
37,300
7,500
294,000
28,350
25,000
in gallons
per day
(gpd)
At least five of Sanford's Significant Industrial Users engage in industrial processes
related to metal finishing. EPA has confirmed that "PFAS have been, and continue to be, used by
metal finishing facilities in the United States" to reduce mechanical wear as well as reduce
corrosion or enhance aesthetic appearance.31 Plating, a type of metal finishing that involves
covering a surface with a thin layer of metal, is used "for corrosion inhibition and radiation
shielding; to harden, reduce friction, alter conductivity, and decorate objects; and to improve
wearability, paint adhesion, infrared (IR) reflectivity, and solderability ,36 The plating industry
uses PFAS for "corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, aesthetic enhancement," and
as a "surfactant, wetting agent/fume suppressant for chrome, copper, nickel and tin
electroplating, and postplating cleaner."37
As a result of the metal finishing industry's broad use of PFAS, PFAS contamination of
surface water is often found near these facilities.38 For instance, Michigan, which has done
extensive PFAS sampling throughout the state, has linked PFAS pollution to plating facilities in
several instances.39 The state found PFOS at levels of 19,000 ppt in the wastewater from Lapeer
15 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Multi -Industry Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Study -2021 Preliminary
Report 6-4 (Sept. 2021), available at h!Ws://www.ppa.gov/Ustem/files/documents/2021-09/multi-industry_pfas-
study preliminary-2021-report _508_2021.09.08.pdf [hereinafter "EPA PFAS Industry Preliminary Report"].
16 Hayley & Aldrich, PFAS Technical Update (2020), available at
httDs://www.halevaldrich. com/Portals/0/Downloads/HA-Technical-Update-PFAS-in-the-DlatinL,-industrv.Ddf.
37 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 5
(2020), available at https://pfas-
Litrcweb.or /g fact_sheets page/PFAS _Fact _Sheet _History and Use_April2020.pdf, Fath, et al., Electrochemical
decomposition of fluorinated wetting agents in plating industry waste water, 73 WATER SCi TECH. 7, 1659-66
(2016), available at hlt2s:Hiwgponline.com/wst/article-lookup/doi/10.2166/wst.2015.650.
38 See EPA PFAS Industry Preliminary Report, supra note 35 at 6-4 to 6-5.
s9 Garret Ellison, All Known PFAS Sites in Michigan, MLIVE (Jun. 11, 2019), https://www.mlive.com/news/err-
2018/07/00699c24a57658/michigan pfas sites.html.
on

Plating & Plastics, a chrome finishing company.40 Similarly, the state has found elevated levels
of PFAS in or around:
• the Washetenaw Industrial Facility in Saline, a former plating site;
• the Ford Motor Company Saline Plant, which formerly did chrome plating;
• a former General Motors Plant 3 plating facility in Lansing;
• the Adams Plating Superfund site in Lansing;
• the Michner Plating shop in Jackson;
• the Diamond Chrome Plating facility in Howell;
• an old Lacks Enterprises plating shop in Cascade Township;
• Electro Chemical Finishing in Wyoming, which discharged plating wastewater;
• a former Lacks Enterprises plating shop in Saranac;
• the former Production Plated Plastics site in Richland;
• the MAHLE Engine Components USA former Harvey Street plant in
Muskegon, which previously used plating in the production of engine parts;
• the Peerless Plating facility in Muskegon Heights; and
• the former Manistee Plating shop.41
Similarly, industries that work with organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
like Sanford's STI Polymer —are a suspected point source category for PFAS.42 EPA notes that
this category:
includes a broad range of sectors, raw materials, and unit operations that may
manufacture or use PFAS ... some [organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fiber]
facilities use PFAS feedstocks as polymerization or processing aids or in the
production of plastic, rubber, resin, coatings, and commercial cleaning products.43
Given these characteristics, EPA has found that this industry category is likely to generate
wastewater containing long -chain and short -chain PFAS including those that are well -studied
and known to be harmful to humans.44
It is possible that Sanford receives wastewater from other industrial sources of PFAS
pollution, nonetheless, because at least six of Sanford's Significant Industrial Users fall into
categories known to be associated with PFAS, it is likely that Sanford's wastewater continues to
contain the toxic chemicals.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 EPA PFAS Industry Preliminary Report, supra note 35 at 5-1.
43 Id.
44Id. at 5-8 to 5-9.
7

II. Sanford's wastewater plant releases 1,4-dioxane, a chemical that causes cancer.
In addition to Sanford's PFAS pollution, the city discharges wastewater containing 1,4-
dioxane, a chemical associated with cancer.41 Sanford reported that their average daily discharge
of 1,4-dioxane is 1.34 parts per billion ("ppb"), but prior sampling at Sanford's wastewater plant
shows levels as high as 13 ppb.46
1,4-dioxane is a clear, man-made chemical that is a byproduct of many industrial
processes.47 The chemical is toxic to humans,48 causing liver and kidney damage at incredibly
low levels.49 As a result of the harms caused by 1,4-dioxane, EPA established a drinking water
health advisory with an associated lifetime cancer risk of one -in -one -million at a concentration
of 0.35 ppb.50 The State of North Carolina has similarly determined that 1,4-dioxane is toxic and
poses a cancer risk at levels higher than 0.35 ppb.sl
Sanford's NPDES application materials contain sampling results from 2019 and 2020.
The sampling shows that the wastewater plant's influent has contained 1,4-dioxane at
concentrations as high as 13.2 ppb, more than 37 times what the state considers safe.52 In 2020,
Sanford's discharge contained levels as high as 2.43 ppb.53
III. Sanford's pollution threatens drinking water supplies for the communities in
Sanford, Goldston, Lee County, and Chatham County.
PFAS and 1,4-dioxane do not break down in the environment and are not removed by
conventional treatment technology.54 That means that if released upstream, these chemicals can
and will pollute downstream drinking water supplies. This has been confirmed before by
drinking water crises in North Carolina. PFAS pollution from the Chemours Fayetteville Works
45 Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at 23, Tab H.
46 Id. at 23.
41 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Technical Fact Sheet— 1,4-Dioxane 1-2 (2017), Attachment 6 [hereinafter "EPA,
Technical Fact Sheet — 1, 4-Dioxane"]; Detlef Knappe, 1,4-Dioxane Occurrence in the Haw River and in Pittsboro
Drinking Water, N.C. STATE UNIV. (Sept. 23, 2019).
4' EPA, Technical Fact Sheet —1,4-Dioxane, supra note 47 at 1.
49 Id.; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Chemical Assessment Summary: 1,4,-dioxane 2
https:Hcfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0326—summary.pdf (last visited on Oct. 20, 2022).
" 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, EPA OFFICE OF WATER 4 (2018),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/dwtable2018.pdf; N.C. Div. of Water Res., I,4-
dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Ongoing Screening, Source Identification,
and Abatement Verification Study 2 (2017) [hereinafter "NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017 Report"] (affirming EPA's
conclusions).
11 N.C. Div. of Water Res., 1,4-dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Ongoing
Screening, Source Identification, and Abatement Verification Study 2 (2017) [hereinafter "NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane
2017 Report"] (affirming EPA's conclusions); see also N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Div. Water Res., Surface Water
Quality Standards, Criteria & In -Stream Target Values (2019) (stating that the one -in -one million cancer risk for
1,4-dioxane is 0.35 ppb), Attachment 7.
" Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
53 Id.
54 See What are PFAS?, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, h!Ws://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-
effects/overview.html (last visited Sept. 12, 2022); see also Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 12; EPA, Technical Fact Sheet— 1,4-Dioxane, supra note 47, at 1-2.
N.

Facility has contaminated drinking water intakes nearly 80 miles downstream,55 and 1,4-dioxane
pollution from the city of Greensboro's wastewater plant has reached the intake for the Pittsboro
approximately 50 miles downstream.56 Sanford's drinking water intake is seventeen miles
downstream of the wastewater plant's discharge. Toxic chemicals released by Sanford's
wastewater plant thus flow directly into the drinking water supplies for Sanford, Goldston, Lee
County and parts of Chatham County.
M
IV-- l.. V U 19 1 f
La ke
W.AVE 1--,0 U 4 i X
imately Holly Springs
Shearon /
Harris
Reservoir
�Fuquay Varina
Sanford Drinking
Vater -
ntake
ape HARNETT
adway Fea�p�� COUNTY
421
System Connections 0 Public Water Supply System Map Location
Existing
• Potential
Author: Miller Cochran ([e-mail])
Last Updated:1V7I2022
Sources: NCDEQ, NCDOT, USGS, Natural Earth 0 2 4 a
Note: Intake and facility outfall locations are approximate
based on best available data Miles
ss See Lisa Sorg, Breaking: New Analysis Indicates That Toxics Were Present in Wilmington Drinking Water at
Extreme Levels, N.C. POLICY WATCH (Oct. 9, 2019), https://pulse.ncpolicyEatch.org/2019/10/09/breaking new-
analysis-indicates-that-toxics-were-present-in-wilmington-drinking-water-at-extreme-levels/#sthash.OtzCYiv3. dpbs.
"See Lisa Sorg, PW Special Report Part Two: Lax Local Regulation Allows Toxic Carcinogen to Infiltrate
Drinking Water Across the Cape Fear River Basin, N.C. POLICY WATCH (July 23, 2020),
httDs://ncDolicvwatch. com/2020/07/23/Dw-special-report-Dart-two-lax-local-re gulation-allows-toxic-carcinogen-to-
infiltrate-drinking-water-across-the-cape-fear-river-basin/.
I

Indeed, past sampling confirms the contamination of Sanford's drinking water. Monthly
sampling by the city shows elevated levels of PFAS in the city's raw water, including
concentrations of PFOA and PFOS as high as 9.35 ppt (2,337 times EPA's health advisory) and
13.8 ppt (690 times EPA's health advisory), respectively.57 In 2021, Sanford also reported an
average concentration of 1,4-dioxane in their raw water at 0.71 ppb58—twice what the state
considers safe to drink.59 Sample results of 1,4-dioxane reached levels as high as 6.19 ppb,60
suggesting the extent of the contamination could be more severe. Because industrial discharges
of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are inconsistent (as evidenced by the variability in the sampling for
Sanford's wastewater plant), the city's infrequent drinking water sampling likely does not
capture the full scope of Sanford's drinking water pollution.
And as discussed, Sanford intends to expand its water services and send drinking water to
Pittsboro, Fuquay-Varina, and Holly Springs. Many of these areas are seeking additional water
capacity to continue their planned development, but some —like Pittsboro—are also seeking
options for water because their current supply is already contaminated with PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane.61 If Sanford's plans go through, the drinking water for more than 80,000 additional
people will be laden with these harmful chemicals.
Unfortunately, Sanford's pollution does not stop at its drinking water intake. Further
downstream, Sanford's pollution contributes to the disproportionate levels of contamination
already present in the Cape Fear River Basin. More than 300,000 people in the communities in
the lower Cape Fear get their drinking water from the Cape Fear River. And public attention on
the PFAS contamination of drinking water throughout the basin will persist. EPA's Fifth
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule will require broad sampling of drinking water
supplies beginning in 2023 and will further shine light on the extent of contamination caused by
sources like Sanford's wastewater plant.62 The Department must control Sanford's discharge if it
is to protect the communities and environment in this area.
IV. The law requires the Department to analyze limits for municipal wastewater
treatment plants and requires those municipalities to control their industries.
As EPA has affirmed, "existing NPDES authorities" can be used to "reduce discharges of
PFAS at the source."63 The same tools exist for 1,4-dioxane. For municipal wastewater treatment
51 City of Sanford, 2021 Annual Water Quality Report 6, (2021), Attachment 8 [hereinafter "Sanford 2021 Water
Report"].
sa Id. at 7.
s9 Water Quality Standards, Criteria & In -Stream Target Values, supra note 51; see also 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2B.0208.
61 Sanford 2021 Water Report, supra note 57 at 7.
61 See Town of Pittsboro Received Second Water Test Results Post-GAC, Hits 90% Removal Target, Town of
Pittsboro (Oct. 4, 2022), htt2s://pittsboronc.aov/CivicAlerts.aMx?AID=104 (reporting levels of PFOA and PFOS in
the raw water at 18.8 ppt and 17.0 ppt, respectively).
61 See U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, The Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5): Program
Overview Fact Sheet (Dec. 2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/Ustem/files/documents/2022-02/ucmr5-
factsheet.pdf.
63 EPA PFAS Roadmap, supra note 8 at 14.
10

plants heavily impacted by industrial discharges, like Sanford, the Department must consider
effluent limits and permit conditions to control the pollution.
The Clean Water Act requires permitting agencies to, at the very least, incorporate,
technology -based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.64 When EPA has not issued
a national effluent limitation guideline for a particular industry,65 permitting agencies must
implement technology -based effluent limits on a case -by -case basis using their "best professional
judgment. ,66 North Carolina water quality laws further state that municipalities must be treated
like an industrial discharger if an industrial user "significantly impact[s]" a municipal treatment
system.61 In this situation, the agency must consider technology -based effluent limits for the
municipality, even if effluent limits and guidelines have not been published and adopted.68
If technology -based limits are not enough to ensure compliance with water quality
standards, the Department must include water quality -based effluent limits in the permit.69 North
Carolina's toxic substances standard protects the public from the harmful effects of toxic
chemicals, like PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.70 For instance, the toxic substances standard mandates
that the concentration of cancer -causing chemicals shall not result in "unacceptable health risks,"
defined as "more than one case of cancer per one million people exposed. ,71 In order to comply
with the Clean Water Act, therefore, the Department must analyze appropriate treatment
technology and then determine if a discharger's pollution has the "reasonable potential to cause,
or contribute" to pollution at levels that could harm human health.72
In addition to using effluent limits to control PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution, the
Department has tools and obligations under the Clean Water Act's pretreatment program.7' The
pretreatment program governs the discharge of industrial wastewater to wastewater treatment
plants and is intended to place the burden of treating polluted discharges on the entity that creates
the pollution, rather than on the taxpayers that support municipal wastewater plants.
Under the pretreatment requirements, municipalities are required to know what waste
they receive from their "Industrial Users."74 EPA has confirmed that this requirement extends to
pollutants that are not conventional or listed as toxic, like PFAS75 and the Department has
suggested the same applies to 1,4-dioxane.76 Municipalities like Sanford must instruct their
64 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) ("Technology -based treatment requirements under section 301(b) of the Act represent the
minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit..." (emphasis added)); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311.
65 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b).
66 40 C.F.R. § 125.3; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0406.
67 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0406(a)(1).
66 Id.
69 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) (stating that
Department must "reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations").
70 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0208.
71 Id. at 213.0208(a)(2)(B).
72 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i).
73 Id. § 403.8.
74Id. § 403.8(f)(2).
75 See EPA PFAS Roadmap, supra note 8 at 14.
76 See, e.g., NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017Report, supra note 51 at 5.
11

industries to identify their pollutants in an industrial waste survey77 and then to apply for a
pretreatment permit, by disclosing "effluent data," including on internal waste streams, necessary
to evaluate pollution controls.78 Significant industrial users are further required to provide
information on "[p]rincipal products and raw materials ... that affect or contribute to the
[significant industrial user's] discharge."79
A municipality that runs a wastewater plant is required to regulate its industries so that
industries do not cause "pass through."80 "Pass through" is when an industrial discharge causes
the wastewater plant to violate its own NPDES permit,81 including standard conditions such as
the one requiring permittees to "take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or
sludge use" that has a "reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment. ,82 Industries are also not permitted to interfere with publicly -owned treatment
works operations. Interference occurs when a discharge disrupts the treatment works' operation
or its sludge use or disposal and violates the facility's NPDES permit or other applicable laws.83
Violating the prohibitions on pass through or interference constitutes a violation of the Clean
Water Act's pretreatment standards and requirements.84 And finally, municipalities must act
"immediately and effectively to halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the [treatment
works] which reasonably appears to present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare
of persons."85 These requirements are further established in Sanford's municipal ordinances.86
Municipalities like Sanford have broad authority to control their industries so that
municipally -owned treatment works can comply with these pretreatment laws. They can "deny
or condition" pollution permits for industries, control industrial pollution "through Permit, order
or similar means," and "require" "the installation of technology. ,87 Municipalities can also
implement local limits to control industrial pollution sent to treatment works in the first place.88
And in addition to the implementing effluent limits, the Department can ensure that
municipalities comply with the Clean Water Act pretreatment program by including the
appropriate permit conditions in the municipalities' NPDES permit.
These rules are how the Clean Water Act "assures the public that [industrial] dischargers
cannot contravene the [Clean Water Act's] objectives of eliminating or at least minimizing
discharges of toxic and other pollutants simply by discharging indirectly through [wastewater
77 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(2)(ii); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, at 4-3
(Jun. 2011), available at hlWs://www.evansville oe v.org/egov/documents/1499266949_62063.pdf.
78 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual (2012), at 4-2 to 4-3, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/industrial_ user permitting_ manual_full.pdf.
79 40 C.F.R. § 122.210)(6)(ii)(C).
80Id. § 403.8(a); id. § 403.5(a)(1).
81 Pass through is defined as "a discharge which exits the [treatment works] into waters of the United States in
quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a
cause of a violation of any requirement of the [treatment works'] NPDES permit (including an increase in the
magnitude or duration of a violation)." Id. § 403.3(p).
82 Id. § 122.41(d).
83 Id. § 403.3(k).
84 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1).
85Id. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B).
86 See Sanford, N.C., Code art. VII § 38-241.
87 40 C.F.R.§ 403.8(f)(1).
88 Id. § 403.5.
12

treatment plants] rather than directly to receiving waters."89 The laws governing the program
ensure that municipally -owned wastewater plants do not become dumping grounds for
uncontrolled industrial waste.
V. The Department must analyze effluent limits for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and impose
appropriate pretreatment permit conditions.
Based on the information in the city's permit application, the Department is aware that
Sanford discharges PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.90 Claiming that more information is needed,
however, the Department did not propose effluent limits and instead only placed monitoring
conditions in the city's permit for both chemicals and a reopener for 1,4-dioxane.91 If the
Department truly believes that it needs more information before analyzing and imposing effluent
limits, it must request that information during the permit process and require Sanford to submit it
as part of its permit application 92—rather than delaying pollution controls until some
indeterminate point in the future.93
a. The Department must analyze and impose effluent limits for PFAS and], 4-dioxane.
As required by the Clean Water Act and discussed in Section IV of this letter, the
Department should consider available treatment technology for Sanford's wastewater plant
because its waste is significantly impacted by industries that are likely sources of PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane. Effective treatment technologies for HAS are available. Granular activated carbon is a
cost-effective and efficient technology that can reduce PFAS concentrations to virtually
nondetectable levels. A granular activated carbon treatment system at the Chemours' facility, for
example, has reduced PFAS concentrations as high as 345,000 ppt from a creek contaminated by
groundwater beneath the facility to nearly nondetectable concentrations.94 The Department must
89 General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources, 52 Fed. Reg. 1586, 1590 (Jan. 14, 1987)
(codified at 40 C.F.R. § 403).
90 See Sanford Permit Factsheet, supra note 33 at 9, 12.
91 Id. at 12.
92 Piney Run Pres. Assn v. Cty. Commis of Carroll Cty., Maryland, 268 F.3d 255, 268 (4th Cir. 2001) ("Because
the permitting scheme is dependent on the permitting authority being able to judge whether the discharge of a
particular pollutant constitutes a significant threat to the environment, discharges not within the reasonable
contemplation of the permitting authority during the permit application process, whether spills or otherwise, do not
come within the protection of the permit shield." (emphasis added)); see also Southern Appalachian Mountain
Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d 560 (4th Cir. 2014).
93 The Department must not wait for EPA method 1633 to become final. EPA's guidance recommends using draft
Method 1633 for a municipally owned treatment works' influent, effluent, and biosolids and EPA has issued permits
requiring use of the method. See Memorandum from Radhika Fox, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, to Water Division
Directors EPA Regions 1-10, Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where
EPA in the Pretreatment Control Authority (Apr. 28, 2022), Attachment 9[hereinafter "EPA NPDES PFAS
Guidance"]; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, NPDES General Permit for Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities
(WWTF's) In Massachusetts: MAG590000 (Sept. 28, 2022), at 10, Attachment 10; see also U.S. Env't Prot.
Agency, Response to Comments NPDES Permit No. MAG590000 (Sept. 28, 2022), Attachment 11.
94 See Parsons, Engineering Report — Old Outfall 002 GAC Pilot Study Results (Sept. 2019), available at
https://www.chemours.com/ja/-/media/files/corporate/l 2e-old-outfall-2-gac-pilot-report-2019-09-
30.pdPrev=6el242091aa846f888afa895eff80e2e&hash=040CAA7522E3D64B9E5445ED6F96BOFB; see also
Chemours Outfall 003, NPDES No. NC0089915 Discharge Monitoring Reports (2020-2022), available at
https://perma.cc/8YND-XT5M.
13

consider the feasibility of using this technology or similarly effective technologies to control
Sanford's PFAS discharges.
As with PFAS, treatment technologies for 1,4-dioxane are available. For instance, the
chemical can be removed using advanced oxidation processes, such as using ultraviolet light in
combination with hydrogen peroxide.9' Such a process has been used at the Tucson International
Airport Area Superfund Site to remove legacy 1,4-dioxane contamination.96 That treatment
system can remove over 97 percent of the chemical from polluted water.97 Treatment technology
for 1,4-dioxane has been installed at industries in North Carolina, as well.98 The Department
must assess treatment technology available to control Sanford's 1,4-dioxane waste.
Additionally, as discussed in Section IV, the Department must evaluate water quality -
based effluent limits for Sanford's permit —particularly limits to ensure compliance with the
narrative toxic substances standard. EPA's health advisories for PFAS and countless toxicity
studies indicate that the chemicals pose unacceptable health risks at extremely low levels. The
Department has stated that PFAS "meet the definition of `toxic substance"' and has included
limits for PFAS referencing the water quality standard and EPA's health advisory for GenX in at
least one NPDES permit.99 The Department should similarly assess effluent limits in Sanford's
permit based on EPA's interim and final PFAS health advisories and other available toxicity
information for the chemicals. This is even more important here where the drinking water intake
is only seventeen miles downstream of the discharge.
The Department must also ensure that Sanford's 1,4-dioxane discharges do not violate
the narrative toxic substances standard. As the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission has made clear, the state uses this standard to set limits and conditions for 1,4-
dioxane in NPDES permits.loo The Department has interpreted the standard to require
concentrations of 1,4-dioxane be less than 0.35 ppb in rivers and streams that serve as drinking
water supplies. I0I In order to comply with the Clean Water Act, therefore, the Department must
91 Arnie C. McElroy, et al., 1,4-Dioxane in drinking water: emerging for 40 years and still unregulated, 7 CURRENT
OPINION IN ENV'T SCIENCE & HEALTH 117, 119 (2019), available at hit 2s:Hagris.fao.or /ag gris-
search/search. do?recordID=US201900256076.
96 See Advanced Treatment for 1,4-Dioxane — Tucson Removes Contamination Through UV -oxidation, TROJANUV
CASESTUDIES (2019), available at hlWs://www.resources.trojanuv.com/w
91 Id. at 2; see also Educational Brochure, TUCSON AIRPORT AREA REMEDIATION PROJECT, available at
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/AOP TARP_ educational_signs.pdf.
98 See City of Greensboro, EMC SOC WQ S 19-010 Year One Report: May 1, 2021 — April 30, 2022 4 (June 13,
2022), available at https://www.,greensboro-nc.,gov/home/showpublisheddocument/53017/637908166316270000.
99 Amended Complaint, North Carolina v. The Chemours Co., 17 CVS 580 (Apr. 9, 2018), at ¶ 152 (stating that "the
process wastewater from [Chemours'] Fluoromonomers/Nafion® Membrane Manufacturing Area contains and has
contained substances or combinations of substances which meet the definition of "toxic substance" set forth in 15A
N.C.A.C. 2B.0202," referring to GenX and other PFAS); N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, NPDES Permit NCO090042
(Sept. 15, 2022), Attachment 12; N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NCO090042 (Sept. 15,
2022), at 11-12, Attachment 13.
'0' See, e.g., N.C. Env't Mgmt. Comm'n, Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2020-2022 Triennial Review — Surface Water
Quality Standards 13- 13 (2021), Attachment 14 (explaining that the state uses the narrative toxic substances standard
to set limits in NPDES permits).
'0' NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017Report, supra note 51 at 2.
14

limit Sanford's discharge so that it will not "cause, or contribute" to concentrations of 1,4-
dioxane exceeding 0.35 ppb in downstream water supplies.10' Because Sanford's discharge is
only seventeen miles from a drinking water intake, the Department must consider whether
Sanford's discharge of 1,4-dioxane has the reasonable potential to violate water quality standards
at the start of that water supply water only a few miles downstream.
Additionally, the reopener placed in Sanford's permit is not enough to protect
communities affected by Sanford's pollution —those communities cannot be forced to wait for
protection. The Department cannot issue a permit unless conditions ensure compliance with
water quality standards,103 and a mere reopener that could be used if an expected water quality
standard violation occurs cannot overcome the Department's obligation to ensure that water
quality standards will be met before issuing a permit. Downstream communities are justifiably
concerned about the likelihood that Sanford's permit will actually be reopened given that the 1,4-
dioxane reopener in the City of Greensboro's permit has yet to result in enforceable limits
despite years of data indicating the municipality discharges the toxic chemical.104
The Department must analyze existing data and impose pollution limits for Sanford's
wastewater plant. What the agency has done in the current draft permit —requiring only
monitoring —is not enough to protect communities currently suffering from PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane pollution.
b. The Department must impose conditions in Sanford's NPDESpermit requiring the city to
use its pretreatment authority to control its industries.
By setting PFAS and 1,4-dioxane limits and conditions in Sanford's permit, the
Department can ensure that Sanford properly regulates its industrial users so that they do not
release uncontrolled toxic waste into the environment and downstream drinking water
supplies.105 The Department must also consider pretreatment conditions in Sanford's permit to
ensure that the city properly identifies and controls any industrial sources of these chemicals.
As an initial matter, the Department must require Sanford to identify all industrial sources
of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. EPA's NPDES PFAS Guidance recommends that permits issued to
municipal wastewater treatment plants include a permit requirement to identify industrial users in
102 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i).
"I 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) ("No permit may be issued until the applicant provides sufficient evidence to
ensure that the proposed system will comply with all applicable water quality standards and requirements. No permit
may be issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards and regulations of all affected states.").
114 Compare N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, NPDES Permit No. NC0047384 (2014) (containing a reopener that states
"[t]his permit may be reopened and modified in the future to include 1,4-dioxane monitoring and/or reduction
measures, if the wastewater discharge is identified as contributing to violations of surface water quality standards")
with N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, T.Z. Osborne WWTP DEQ Special Study: 1,4-Dioxane Effluent Data (2020),
available at hlWs:Hdeg.nc.gov/media/18067/download (collecting effluent sample results between 2017 and 2020
and reaching as high as 957.5 ppb) and City of Greensboro, T.Z. Osborne 1,4-dioxane Grab Sample Data (Feb.
2022), hlWs://www.,greensboro-nc.aov/home/shoyMublisheddocument/52232/637837174143630000 (reporting 1,4-
dioxane concentrations ranging between 1.54 ppb and 823 ppb in Greensboro's effluent between May 5, 2021 and
February 15, 2022).
105 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1).
15

industry categories "expected or suspected of PFAS discharges."lob After industrial users are
identified, the guidance recommends using data collected to develop best management practices
or local limits.107 EPA Region 1 issued an updated NPDES General Permit for medium-sized
municipally -owned treatment works in Massachusetts implementing this guidance. The permit
requires quarterly sampling of the municipality's influent, effluent, and sludge, as well as annual
sampling of the industrial sources.108 The Department should place a condition in Sanford's
permit that requires it to update its industrial user survey and determine the volume and/or
concentration of HAS and 1,4-dioxane being sent, by each industrial user, to the wastewater
treatment plant.
After the survey, Sanford will have the tools and information needed to ensure its
industries do not cause it to continue to release PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in violation of the Clean
Water Act. First, Sanford's municipal ordinances state "[n]o user shall contribute or cause to be
contributed into the [wastewater plant] ... [a]ny wastewater causing the treatment plant effluent
to violate state water quality standards for toxic substances as described in 15A NCAC
2B.0200."109 As discussed above, both PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are regulated as toxic substances
under this provision of North Carolina law, and releases of those chemicals that have the
potential to harm human health would violate Sanford's ordinance.
In addition, PFAS and 1,4-dioxane released by Sanford's industries into the city's
wastewater plant violate the Clean Water Act's pretreatment regulations. For instance, this
pollution causes "pass through" because it causes Sanford to violate its NPDES permit
conditions, such as the condition requiring permittees to "take all reasonable steps to prevent or
minimize any discharge or sludge use" that has a "reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the environment."110 Not only do PFAS and 1,4-dioxane flow straight through
Sanford's wastewater plant, untreated, as discharges that harm human health and the
environment, the chemicals can also end up in Sanford's sludge, t t t which further threatens
human health and the environment when the sludge is land applied. Studies have shown that
PFAS-contaminated sludge that is land applied can runoff into surface waters that supply
drinking water for communities downstream and leach into groundwater which in turn threatens
106 EPA NPDES PFAS Guidance, supra note 93 at 3.
107 Id.
108 NPDES General Permit MAG590000, supra note 93 at 5.
109 Sanford, N.C., Code art V11 § 38-241(b)(19).
110 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(d).
111 Sanford produces sludge as a byproduct of the city's treatment processes and arranges for its sludge to be applied
on nearby fields in Chatham County. Sanford is authorized to apply 1,500 dry tons of sludge each year. Because
Sanford's treatment plant is not equipped to remove PFAS or 1,4-dioxane, Sanford's sludge likely contains these
toxic chemicals.
16

drinking water wells.112 1,4-dioxane has also been found in solid waste in North Carolina,113 and
the land application of sludge contaminated with 1,4-dioxane could also pollute nearby waters.
Second, because these chemicals can end up in Sanford's sludge, PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
coming from the city's industries are likely also causing "interference," interfering with the
city's sludge processes, use, and disposal practice.114 Finally, municipalities like Sanford are
required to "immediately and effectively ... halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the
[treatment works] which reasonably appears to present an imminent endangerment to the health
or welfare of persons."' 15 This includes any PFAS or 1,4-dioxane that Sanford receives from its
industries. Based on the available data, Sanford has not "immediately ... halt[ed] or
prevent[ed]" any PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution it receives from its industries.
As the permitting authority for Sanford and the approval authority of the city's
pretreatment program, the Department must incorporate NPDES requirements as necessary to
ensure compliance. As stated in EPA's NPDES permitting guidance manual, "NPDES permits
drive the development and implementation of pretreatment programs."' 16 They do so by
requiring "control mechanisms issued to significant industrial users," "compliance monitoring
activities," and "swift and effective enforcement." 117 Because Sanford's significant industrial
users are likely responsible for the city's PFAS and 1,4-dioxane discharges, the Department
should include necessary conditions in Sanford's permit to require the city to: (1) update its
industrial user survey and determine all industrial sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, and (2)
control any industrial sources of the chemicals "through Permit, order," "the installation of
technology," 118 local limits,' 19 or other means under the Clean Water Act pretreatment program.
VI. The Department must hold a public hearing on this draft NPDES permit.
With this letter, the Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of itself, Haw River
Assembly, and Cape Fear River Watch, requests a public hearing on Sanford's draft NPDES
112 Andrew B. Lindstrom et al., Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound
Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA, 45 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 8015 (2011);
Jennifer G. Sepulvado et al., Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of
Municipal Biosolids, 45 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. A, (2011); Janine Kowalczyk et al., Transfer of Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)From Contaminated Feed Into Milk and Meat of Sheep: Pilot
Study, 63 ARCHIVES ENVTL. CONTAMINATION & TOXICOLOGY 288 (2012); Holly Lee et al., Fate of
Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphate Diesters and Their Metabolites in Biosolids-Applied Soil: Biodegradation and Plant
Uptake in Greenhouse and Field Experiments, 48 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 340 (2014).
13 Lisa Sorg, What is your compost made of? Use public records to find out., N.C. POLICY WATCH (Apr. 26, 2019),
https://pulse.ncpolicywatch. org/2019/04/26/what-is-your-compost-made-of-use-public-records-to-find-
out/#sthash. W sY V VKXk. dpbs.
114 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(k).
115 Id. § 403.8 § (f)(1)(vi)(B); see also Sanford, N.C., Code art. VII. § 38-224(a)(5) (a municipally -owned
wastewater plant "may suspend the wastewater treatment service and/or wastewater permit when such suspension is
necessary in order to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present an imminent or
substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of persons or the environment, interferes with the [public works]
or causes the [public works] to violate any condition of its NPDES or non -discharge permit.").
"' U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, NPDES Permit Writers' Manual 9-10 (2010), available at
hlt2s://www.ej2a.aov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/Twm 2010.pdf.
117 Id.
118 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1) (emphasis added).
19 40 C.F.R. § 403.5.
17

permit.120 We are aware that members of the public have already requested a public hearing, but
emphasize again the importance of holding such a public event.
There is significant public interest in holding a public hearing on this draft NPDES
permit.121 As explained in thorough detail above, Sanford discharges 1,4-dioxane and PFAS into
the drinking water supplies of not only its own residents, but also the residents in Goldston, Lee
County, and Chatham County. In addition, Sanford has announced its intent to expand its
drinking water services to at least three other cities across the stateincluding communities that
have suffered from industrial chemical pollution for decades. Furthermore, the pollution from
Sanford's wastewater plant compounds on the industrial pollution already plaguing the Cape
Fear River. The pollution threatens the health of the eco-system of this bio-diversity hotspot and
the communities across the Lower Cape Fear, including those in New Hanover, Brunswick and
Pender counties, that rely on the Cape Fear for their drinking water, as well as their fishing and
tourism economies.
VII. Conclusion.
In summary, the Department must evaluate and impose pollution limits for PFAS and
1,4-dioxane in Sanford's NPDES permit. Additionally, the Department must require Sanford to
update its industrial user survey to include PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, and the Department must
impose conditions in Sanford's NPDES permit to require the city to use its pretreatment
authority to control industrial sources of the toxic chemicals. Because the draft permit fails to
meet these requirements, it should be withdrawn. Additionally, we request that the Department
hold a public hearing on this permit so that communities affected by Sanford's pollution can
express their concerns.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
4""OAW
Hannah M. Nelson
Jean Zhuan
`0 .n.-
Geoff Gisler
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
121 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0I I I(a)(1).
12' N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(c)(3); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.01I I(a)(1).
IN

cc: Emily Sutton, Haw River Assembly, [e-mail]
Elaine Chiosso, Haw River Assembly, [e-mail]
Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear River Watch, kemp@cfrw. us
Dana Sargent, Cape Fear River Watch, [e-mail]
19

ATTACHMENT 1

UVZO22, 6:38 PM Millsboro Beard Discusses Funding for Water Partnership WM Sanford- ChapelboroCom
On Air Now: 97.9 FM - Listen Live f V 18 0 SEARCH P
YOUR DAILY LOCAL NEWS SOURCE
CHAPELBOROXOM
�nnglll 97.9 THE HILL Illnum�
LISTEN LIVE NEWS ELECTION SPORTS TOWN SQUARE NEWSLETTERS
97.9 THE HILL WCHL EVENT CALENDARS WELLNESS GUIDE
ON AIR NO
97.9 FM
Pittsboro Board Discusses Funding Live &Local
with Aaron Keck
for Water Partnership With Sanford
Posted by Chatham News+Record I tan 30, 20221 Chatham N+R Town O Listen
Live
Square
By Taylor Heeden, Chatham News +BecardSteff
The town's board of commissioners met Monday evening and addressed
the funding of Its water partnership with the city of Sanford, which
resulted In the delay of vote tolinahze an agreement between the
town and Chatham Park Investors.
The Sanford partnership would allow for Pittsboro — along with
Chatham County, Fuquay-Varina and Holly Springs — to utilize Sanford's
water facilities to provide drinking water for their own communities.
Each of the entities would contribute money toward Sanford's water
capacity expansion project, which would Increase Its treatment plamrs
capacity from 12 mil lion gal Ions per day to 30 mill Ion gallons per day.
Town Manager Chris Kennedy said he has communicated with the
prospective partners to decide the best course of action to move the
project forward.
"Obviously, our water quality Issues are much discussed here In
Pittsboro, (but) probably the lesser known evil In that Is our water
capacity Issues," Kennedy said. "We are seeking to partner with the City
of Sanford to assist with both of those"
hftps tichapelbam_mmftmn-s mu pittsbaro-boartdiscuss Mnding-for- water - padnership-witirsanford 115

10Q01 , 6:38 PM Pifisbora Beard Discusses Funding for Water PaMership WM Sanfortl- Chapelbommm
Plttsboro currently draws Its water from the Haw River, which has
repeatedly tested positive for potential human carcinogens, such as
PFAS, PFOS and 1,4Dloxane, following discharges of such slugs from an
unknown source In Greensboro.
"The City of Sanford has provided that to us about the quality of theirs
being better than the town of Pittsboro's, certainly their capacity levels
are better than Pittsboro's," Kennedysald.
The project expansion Is estimated to cost $1125 million among the
partners, with Plttsboro expected to pay around $1.878 million for Its
share of the expansion, Kennedy said. The expansion would give
Plttsboro three million gallons a day of additional capacity.
Kennedy said this agreement will allow for a more steady and
dependable source of water for future residents as Plttsboro continues
to grow.
"It Is part of my commitment to you to continue to bring projects sim liar
to this so we can bring generational capacities both on the water and
sewer side to this board for decision points," he told commissioners.
"The town needs to Identify Its utl Ilty sources as we continue to grow,
not only for our residents In the immediate future but for our far distant
future as well."
In order to pay the $1.878 million to complete the project, Kennedy and
town staff have arranged an agreement with Chatham Park Investors
calling for the Investors to reimburse the town the total amount of
$1.878 mill Ion to ensure they can make use of the expanded capacity.
Some commissioners were concerned with making a vote Monday
evening on the last-minute agenda Item. Comm lssloner John Boni said
he wanted a chance to read over the agreement between Chatham Park
Investors and the town more thoroughly before voting.
"To be clear, I am completely convinced that we need this capacity for
water, and we need It not only for the water Itself, but for the kind of de
facto Inter -basin transfer that It will bring us and some additional
capacity we hope on our sewer force maln," he said. "There are a lot of
good reasons for this, but I do want to take a close look at It and make
sure that I understand It completely."
Town Attorney Paul Messick addressed Bonla's concerns by saying this
would not be an unfamiliar arrangement for the town of Plttsboro. He
said ICs similar to the one the town has In place with Chatham Park
regarding sewage lines throughout the development.
"YouVe got to pay for it somewhere, and Its either going to come from
the fund balance that doesn't have It, or you are going to have to make
some other arrangements," he said. "This Is not debt In the sense that a
hftps tichapelbam_mmttewn-squaw/pittsbero-boartdiscuss Mnding- Fur -water -partnership -w ffhsankxdl 215

10r211122, 6:38 PM Pifisbore Board Discusses Funding for Water Partnership WM Sanford- Chapelbommm
Town Manager Chris Kennedy
said he het enmmuniratM with
the prospective partners to
decide the best course of anion
to move the project forward.
local government commissioner would
Ix Interested In —the Chatham Park
part of this is revenue, Its Income for
the town"
Commissioner Jay Farrell said he was
ready to approve the agreement,
adding that he was worried that
postponing the vote could result in
further delays in the project.
"I don't know what two more weeks is
going to make on us," he said. "WeVe
been fortunate enough to have
Chatham Park to come in here and
make this amount of money."
Commissioner Pamela Baldwin
acknowledged the desire of some
board members to look over the contracts specific terms, but ultimately
said she was ready to move forward with the agreement.
"This is the only viable option we have in reference to obtaining that
additional sewage, so basically we need to go forward with it," she said
Commissioner Kyle Shipp voiced his concerns about the board being on
the same page, saying all commissioners should have more time to read
over the terms fully so everyone can be in agreement.
"I think it is a necessary sol oft on to where we are at," Shipp said "but I
think it would be good to have that additional time to review after we got
It"
The board cabled the matter and will revisit In on Feb. 14.
Chapelboracam has partnered with the Chatham News +Record in order to
bring more Chatham focused stories to ouraudience.
The Chatham News +Record is Chatham Count" source for local news and
loumalism. The Chatham News, established in 1924 and the Chatham
Record, )founded in 1878, have come together to better serve the Chatham
community as the Chatham News +Record. Covering news, bus/ness, sports
and more, the News +Record is working to strengthen community ties
through compelling coverage of life in Chatham County.
Sponsored Content
hftps i1chapelbam_mmttawn-s mu pi6sbar artdiscuss funding -for -water- partnership-withsankedl 315

1000122, 8:38 PM
Pittsboro Board Discusses Funding for Water Partnership With Sanford - Chapelboro.com
Average Retirement Doctors Can't Older Men Are
Savings By Age: Are Explain It But This using This For Their
You Normal? Destroys Nasty Manhood Here
SmartAsset trendingstorys.com Tupi Tea
[Photos] Inside 11 Benefits of
Hillary Clinton's Drinking Ka"Chava
Mansion Where She Daily
Cars &Yachts Ka'Chava
SHARE:
< PREVIOUS
Here Are 39+ of the
Coolest Gifts for
2022
39+ hottest cool gifts you`ll
regret not getting before
theysell out
Top Deals
f 9• t IP in t r. w
UNC Basketball Explodes Against NC
State, Reaches 100 Points For First Time
This Season
Leave a Reply
N FXT >
University Place Extends Lease of County
Recycling Center Through May
https:ltchape Ib oro. comltown-square/pdtsborD-board-discusses-funding-for-water-partnership-with-sanford 4/5

10/20/22, 6:38 PM Pittsboro Board Discusses Funding for Water Partnership With Sanford - Chapelboro.com
Contact Info Meet Our Staff! Advertise with Us Submit a News Story Submit a Correction
Submit News or Event Photos Submit an Opinion Column Submit a Hometown Hero Awards
Chapelboro.com and WCHL, equal opportunity employers, are dedicated to providing broad outreach regarding job
vacancies at the station. We seek the help of local organizations in referring qualified applicants to our station.
Organizations that wish to receive our vacancy information should contact WCHL by calling [phone].
FCC PUBLIC INSPECTION FILES
© Chapelboro
WCHL
University Place
201 South Estes Drive, Suite C6a
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[phone] Office
© Copyright 2022 Chapelboro.com. All rights reserved.
f
https:Hchapelboro.com/town-square/pittsboro-board-discusses-funding-for-water-partnership-with-sanford 5/5

ATTACHMENT 2

Interbasin Transfer
The Town of Fuquay-Varina has partnered with the City of Sanford to purchase up to 6 million gallons
per day (mgd) of finished water from the City to meet the Town's water supply needs over a 30-year
planning period. Finished water will be transferred from the Cape Fear River basin (Lee County) to the
Neuse River basin (Wake County). An interbasin transfer is defined as the regulated movement of
surface water from one river basin to another. Law does not prohibit transfers, but requires that effects of
the transfer on the source and receiving basins be quantified prior to the transfer. The proposed water
balance and interbasin transfer (IBT) meet the statutory definition of a transfer per General Statutes 143-
215.22E and 215.22L, therefore the Town of Fuquay-Varina must prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement, conduct Public Hearings, and submit a petition to the Environmental Management
Commission for the IBT Certificate. The process is anticipated to take three years. This webpage will
provide information on the status of the IBT request during this process.
Important Documents
o Summary of Interbasin Transfer Scoping Process x,)N
o Town of Fuquay-Varina IBT Notice of Intent September 2020 Hi an I help find an answer to
your question?
o NC Register - Notice of Public Meetings_ Fuquay-Varina Proposea its i
o Chatham County Ag Center Map- Public Meeting
-3

o Cary Towne Center Map - Public Meeting
o Cross Creek Mall Map - Public Meeting
o FVIBT-Report v6 11 30 2020
o Memo Summary of IBT Public and Agency Scoping Comments
o DWR IBT-Fuquay_Public Meetings_10.20
o Hazen NOI Public Meetings FV IBT Scoping_Oct2020
CP Government Websites by CivicPlus®
tHi
Ion I help find an answer to
your question?
-3

ATTACHMENT 3

SUBURBAN Live-rj
SERVING THE TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
DCIM100MEDIADJI_0129.JPG
WATER NEEDS
Posted By Rob Fox on December 17, 2021 In Articles, Civics
Water is one of our most precious resources, but one that is often taken for granted until t is in short supply. The Town of Holly Springs
has been actively planning to make sure that everyone has access to an adequate water supply and that future residents and businesses
will have plentiful water to meet their needs.
Currently, Holly Springs has access to 12 million gallons per day of water. But two years ago, when the town's future land use plan was
created, experts determined that down the road when Holly Springs is completely built out, the town will need 16 million gallons per day
of water.
"We knew that sometime in the future we needed an add tional 4 million gallons per day, so we started meeting with water plants in the
area to determine where we could purchase water;" said Holly Springs Util ties and Infrastructure Executive Director Kendra Parrish. "Our
goal has always been to diversify our sources of water so we would not be reliant on one provider."
Today the town gets its water from Harnett Regional Water, which pulls from the Cape Fear River. Holly Springs also has agreements w th
Apex and Cary to obtain water in case of emergencies. But ne ther municipality could provide the town water on a regular basis. One
option that was deemed cost prohibitive, was for the town to build is own water treatment plant.
As the area continues to grow, many municipalities are looking for additional water resources. After talking with neighbors, Holly Springs
staff soon discovered that Fuquay-Varina was also seeking add tional water. It made sense for the towns to work together to find a
solution.
"From our research, we discovered that the C ty of Sanford Water Filtration Facility was poised for a major expansion project;" said Parrish
"In fact, Fuquay-Varina, Pittsboro, and Chatham County were also interested in exploring the possibility of tapping into this expansion and
it soon became apparent that we could pool our resources to make this happen."
Over the last two years, the Holly Springs Town Council has approved a regional partner agreement to study how the Sanford facility
could meet their future needs, along with research into how to get that water from Sanford to Holly Springs. In September, the Council
approved an agreement to partner in the design of the water treatment plant expansion. The total cost to Holly Springs for the design
and construction is estimated to be approximately $66 million. Portions of that cost could be offset by American Rescue Plan Act funding
along with federal and state grants.
"Residents and businesses should be reassured that we are being proactive about the town's future water needs," said Parrish. "The next
time you drive by those big water towers in Holly Springs, you can explain to your kids where we get our water and that future
generations will have no worries when they turn on the faucet at the kitchen sink."
f

ATTACHMENT 4

ii
FUQU/-\(-\/nR'IN n
north corolino
September 1, 2020
Dr. A. Stanley Meiburg, Chapman
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
c/o EMC Recording Clerk
Director's Office —Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Town ofFuquay-Varina—Notice of Intent to Request an Interbasin Certificate
Dear Dr. Meiburg and EMC Members:
The Town of Fuquay-Varina respectfully requests that you consider this correspondence as our
Notification of Intent (NOI) to request an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate. The Town requests an
average day transfer of approximately 4 million gallons per day (mgd) and a maximum day transfer of
8 mgd from the Cape Fear River basin to the Neuse River basin. The transfer amount is based on 2055
water demand projections in the Town's service area. The transfer amount will be refined during the
process of preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
We have been in the process of planning for water supply and wastewater infrastructure over the last
several years. The Town owns and operates the 3 mgd Terrible Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
(W WTP) discharging to Terrible Creek in the Neuse River basin, and the 0.117 mgd Brighton Forest
W WTP discharging into Middle Creek in the Neuse River Basin. The Town has also purchased
wastewater treatment capacity in Harnett County's W WTP, which discharges to the Cape Fear River
basin. We currently operate a water distribution system in our service area; however, we do not own
water supply capacity. We purchase finished water wholesale from the City of Raleigh, Harnett County,
and Johnston County on a contract basis. However, discussions have indicated that a long-term water
supply solution from our current water purveyors is not feasible.
In response to our water supply needs in our growing community, we have initiated discussions with the
City of Sanford to purchase 6 mgd of finished water capacity in the City of Sanford's Water Treatment
Plant (WTP). The raw water intake and the WTP for the City of Sanford is located in the Cape Fear River
basin. We currently serve customers in both the Neuse and the Cape Fear River basins. Our preliminary
calculations indicate that the purchase of water supply capacity from the City of Sanford will result in an
IBT. Figure I provides an illustration of the proposed IBT between the City of Sanford and the Town, the
river basin IBT boundaries, and our respective service areas.
Our Team has reviewed the statutory requirements via § 143-215.22L for pursuing an IBT Certificate. We
are committed to following the required process and to working cooperatively with the Environmental
Management Commission and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The
Town of Fuquay Varina = 134 N. Main Street, Fuquay-Varina, NO 27526 = [phone] = fuquay-varina.org

Town will provide stakeholders an opportunity to participate in this project through an open and active
public process.
We appreciate your time and consideration of this notice. If you have any questions orcomrnents, please
reach out to Mr. Jay Meyers, Town of Fuquay-Varina Public Utilities Director, or Ms. Mary Sadler,
Hazen and Sawyer. Our contact information is provided as follows:
Jay Meyers, PE
Public Utilities Director
919-567-3991
[e-mail]
Respe 11
4btxc—�
Adam Mitchell
Town Manager
Attachments
Mary Sadler, PE
Senior Associate
919-755-8650
[e-mail]
I
Ja Meyers, E
Public Utilities Director
cc: Mr. Daniel Smith, Director, NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
Ms. Karen Higgins, Water Planning Section Chief, NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
Mr. Linwood Peele, Water Supply Section Branch Chief, NC DEQ Division of Water Resources
Mary Sadler, PE, Hazen and Sawyer

Deep River; Basin 1 Sanfon
WWrP
LEE COUNTY
MOORE COUNTY
Legend
© Wastewater Treatment Plant
© Water Treatment Plant
IC3 IBT Boundary
County Boundary
Major Water Body
-��--- Major River/Stream
Primary Road
.T Municipal Boundary
ETJ
City of Sanford
Water Filtration
Facility
i rsin'n, h
kz r
Holly Springs
HARNETT
2-3:
Cape Fear River Basin
iarnett Cou
RegionabW
r South
Harnett
WWTP
Lake
V
Terrible
River
ti
Basin
r
_...___ \82----=-�% South Rifler in
G
i
SAMPSON COUNTY
COUNTY
tin=aemnes // o s a e u.�.,
miles FUQUAY-VARINA Hazen
ea
e�

ATTACHMENT 5

United States Office o..
"IrISYE■�Environmental Protection EPA 822-F 22-002Technical Fact Sheet: Drinking Water Health Advisories
for Four PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, GenX chemicals, and FIRS)
Summary
As part of EPA's commitment to safeguard communities from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), EPA
has issued interim updated drinking water health advisories for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and final health advisories for hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO) dimer acid
and its ammonium salt (together referred to as "GenX chemicals") and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid and its
related compound potassium perfluorobutane sulfonate (together referred to as VMS"). The interim health
advisories for PFOA and PFOS are intended to provide information to states and public water systems until the
National Primary Drinking Water regulation for PEAS takes effect. All four of these health advisories provide
drinking water system operators, and state, tribal, and local officials who have the primary responsibility for
overseeing these systems, with information on the health risks of these chemicals, so they can take the
appropriate actions to protect their residents.
Background
What Are PFAS?
PFAS are synthetic chemicals that have been manufactured and used by a broad range of industries since the
1940s. PFAS are used in many applications because of their unique physical properties such as resistance to
high and low temperatures, resistance to degradation, and nonstick characteristics. PFAS have been detected
worldwide in the air, soil, and water. Due to their widespread use and persistence in the environment, most
people in the United States have been exposed to PFAS. There is evidence that exposure above specific levels
to certain PFAS may cause adverse health effects.
What Are Drinking Water Health Advisories?
Drinking water health advisories (HAs) provide information on contaminants that can cause human health
effects and are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water. EPA's HAs are non -enforceable and non -
regulatory and provide technical information to drinking water system operators, as well as federal, state,
tribal, and local officials on health effects, analytical methods, and treatment technologies associated with
drinking water contamination.
Why is EPA Issuing These HAs?
In 2016, EPA published HAs for PFOA and PFOS based on the evidence available at that time (U.S. EPA 2016,
a,b). The science has evolved since then and EPA is now replacing the 2016 advisories with interim updated
lifetime HAs for PFOA and PFOS that are based on new studies and draft toxicity values from EPA's 2021 draft
PFOA and PFOS health effects documents. Fulfilling EPA's commitment in its October 2021 PFAS Strategic
Roadmap, EPA has issued final lifetime HAs for GenX chemicals and PFBS.

How Does EPA Calculate HAs?
The following equation is used to derive a lifetime noncancer health advisory. A lifetime noncancer health
advisory is designed to be protective of noncancer effects over a lifetime of exposure, including sensitive
populations and life stages, and is typically based on data from experimental animal toxicity and/or human
studies.
Where
Lifetime HA = C RfD
DWI-BW I * RSC
RfD = chronic reference dose —an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude)
of a daily oral exposure of the human population to a substance that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
DWI-BW = drinking water intake rate adjusted for body weight —the 90th percentile DWI for the
selected population or life stage, adjusted for body weight (BW), in units of L/kg bw-day. The DWI-BW
considers both direct and indirect consumption of tap water (indirect water consumption encompasses
water added in the preparation of foods or beverages, such as tea or coffee).
RSC = relative source contribution —the percentage of the total oral exposure attributed to drinking
water sources (U.S. EPA, 2000) where the remainder of the exposure is allocated to all other routes or
sources.
What Types of Health Outcomes are Associated with Exposure to These Four PFAS, and How
Did EPA Develop the HAs?
PFOA and PFOS
EPA is conducting extensive evaluations of human epidemiological and experimental animal study data to
support the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for PFOA and PFOS.
In November 2021, EPA released draft documents that summarize the updated health effects analyses for EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB) review (U.S. EPA, 2021a, b). EPA evaluated over 400 studies published since
2016 and used new human health risk assessment approaches, tools, and models. Human studies have found
associations between PFOA and/or PFOS exposure and effects on the immune system, the cardiovascular
system, development (e.g., decreased birth weight), and cancer. The new published peer -reviewed data and
draft EPA analyses (U.S. EPA, 2021a, b) indicate that the levels at which negative health outcomes could occur
are much lower than previously understood when the agency issued its 2016 HAs for PFOA and PFOS (70 parts
per trillion or ppt). EPA's 2021 draft non -cancer reference doses (RfDs) based on human epidemiology studies
for various effects (e.g., developmental/growth, cardiovascular health outcomes, immune health) range from
—10-7 to 10-9 mg/kg/day. These draft RfDs are two to four orders of magnitude lower than EPA's 2016 RfDs of 2
x 10-5 mg/kg/day (U.S. EPA, 2021a, b).
The most sensitive non -cancer effect based on the draft EPA analyses, decreased immunity (i.e., decreased
serum antibody concentrations after vaccination) in children in a human epidemiology study, was selected as
the basis for the draft RfD (toxicity value) in the PFOA and PFOS health effects draft documents (U.S. EPA,
2021a, b). EPA used the draft RfD to derive the interim updated HAs for PFOA and PFOS. In the critical study,
EPA selected the critical effect of decreased serum antibody concentration in children associated with
increased serum PFOA and/or PFOS concentrations. EPA expects this critical effect to be protective of all other
adverse health effects observed in humans because this adverse effect can reduce the protection afforded by
vaccines after exposure to PFOA/PFOS during a sensitive developmental life stage and it yields the lowest
point of departure (POD) (U.S. EPA, 2021a, b). For both PFOA and PFOS, an intraspecies uncertainty factor
2

(UFH) of 10 was applied to account for variability in the response within the human population (U.S. EPA,
2002). EPA identified children ages 0-5 years as a sensitive life stage, based on the critical study, and selected
the corresponding DWI-BW. Based on a literature search of the available information on exposure sources and
routes, EPA calculated the interim HAs for PFOA and PFOS using an RSC of 0.20, meaning that 20% of the
exposure — equal to the RfD — is allocated to drinking water, and the remaining 80% is attributed to all other
potential exposure sources (U.S. EPA, 2022a, b; U.S. EPA, 2000).
While there is evidence that PFOA is likely to be carcinogenic to humans, EPA has not derived a cancer risk
concentration in water for PFOA at this time. For PFOS, there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
in humans. Additional analyses of the cancer study data are ongoing for both PFOA and PFOS.
The underlying science that EPA used to develop the interim health advisories is currently undergoing SAB
review, and therefore, these interim health advisories are subject to change. After receiving the SAB's final
report, EPA will complete its revisions to address their feedback and recommendations, which could lead the
agency to draw different conclusions than are reflected in the draft health effects analyses (U.S. EPA, 2021a,
b). As a result, the interim health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS (U.S. EPA, 2022a, b) could change. EPA
may update or remove the interim health advisories for PFOA and PFOS upon finalization of the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
GenX Chemicals and PFBS
EPA's final health advisories for GenX chemicals and PFBS are based on animal toxicity studies following oral
exposure to these chemicals. Studies of exposure to GenX chemicals have reported health effects in the liver,
kidney, immune system, development, as well as cancer. The most sensitive non -cancer effect among the
available data was an adverse liver effect (constellation of liver lesions) (U.S. EPA, 2021c). This critical effect
was the basis for the final chronic RfD which EPA used to derive the final HA for GenX chemicals. To develop
the final chronic RfD for GenX chemicals, EPA applied a composite OF of 3,000 (i.e., 10X for intraspecies
variability (UFH), 3X for interspecies differences (UFA), 10X for extrapolation from a subchronic to a chronic
dosing duration (UFs), and 10X for database deficiencies (UFD)) (U.S. EPA, 2021c). EPA identified lactating
women as an adult life stage with the greatest potential exposure from drinking water, based on the critical
study, and selected the corresponding DWI-BW. EPA calculated the final HA for GenX chemicals using an RSC
of 0.20, meaning that 20% of the exposure -- equal to the RfD -- is allocated to drinking water, and the
remaining 80% is attributed to all other potential exposure sources (U.S. EPA, 2022c). There is suggestive
evidence of carcinogenic potential of oral exposure to GenX chemicals in humans and the available data are
insufficient to derive a cancer risk concentration in water for GenX chemicals.
For PFBS, animal studies have reported health effects on the thyroid, reproductive system, development, and
kidney following oral exposure. The most sensitive non -cancer effect was an adverse effect on the thyroid (i.e.,
decreased serum total thyroxine) in newborn mice in a study with exposure throughout gestation in the
mothers. This critical effect was the basis for the final chronic RfD which EPA used to derive the final HA for
PFBS (U.S. EPA, 2021d; U.S. EPA, 2022d). EPA applied a composite OF of 300 (i.e., 10X for intraspecies
variability (UFH), 3X for interspecies differences (UFA), and 10X for database deficiencies (UFD)) (U.S. EPA,
2021d). EPA identified women of child-bearing age as a sensitive life stage, based on the critical study, and
selected the corresponding DWI-BW. EPA calculated the final HA for PFBS using an RSC of 0.20, meaning that
20% of the exposure — equal to the RfD — is allocated to drinking water, and the remaining 80% is attributed to
all other potential exposure sources (U.S. EPA, 2022d). There were no studies identified that evaluated
potential cancer effects after PFBS exposure so the potential for cancer effects after PFBS exposure could not
be evaluated.
3

What are the HAs for the four PFAS?
•' Interim
Updated
Health Advisory — Input Parameters and HA Value
Chronic RfD 1.5E-9
mg/kg/day
U.S. EPA, 2021a. Draft RfD based on developmental immune health outcome
(suppression of tetanus vaccine response in 7-year-old children). Human
epidemiological studies.
DWI-BW
0.0701
L/kg-day
U.S. EPA, 2019. 90th percentile direct and indirect consumption of
community water, consumers -only population, two-day average, for children
ages 0 to <5 years based on 2005-2010 National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES).
RSC
0.2
N/A
U.S. EPA, 2021a. RSC based on a review of the current scientific literature.
PFOA Interim Updated Lifetime Health Advisory = 4E-09 mg/L or 0.004 ppt
(EPA 2022a)
PFOS Interim
Updated Health Advisory — Input Parameters and HA Value
Chronic RfD 7.9E-09
mg/kg/day U.S. EPA, 2021b. Draft RfD based on developmental immune health outcome
(suppression of diphtheria vaccine response in 7-year-old children). Human
epidemiological studies.
DWI-BW
0.0701
L/kg-day
U.S. EPA, 2019. 90th percentile direct and indirect consumption of
community water, consumers -only population, two-day average, for children
ages 0 to <5 years based on 2005-2010 NHANES.
RSC
0.2
N/A
U.S. EPA, 2021b. RSC based on a review of the current scientific literature.
PFOS Interim Updated Lifetime Health Advisory= 2E-08 mg/L or 0.02 ppt
(EPA 2022b)
GenX
Chemicals
Final
Health Advisory — Input Parameters and HA Value
Chronic RfD
3E-06
mg/kg/day
U.S. EPA, 2021c. Final RfD based on critical liver effects (constellation of liver
lesions as defined by the National Toxicology Program Pathology Working
Group) in parental female mice exposed to HFPO dimer acid ammonium salt
by gavage for 53-64 days.
DWI-BW
0.0469
L/kg-day
U.S. EPA, 2019. 9& percentile two-day average, consumer only estimate of
combined direct and indirect community water ingestion for lactating
women (13 to <50 years) based on 2005-2010 NHANES.
RSC
0.2
N/A
U.S. EPA, 2021c. Based on a review of the current scientific literature.
GenX Chemicals Final Lifetime Health Advisory = 0.00001 mg/L or 10 ppt
(EPA 2022c)
PFBS
Final Health
Advisory — Input Parameters and HA Value
Chronic MD 3E-04
mg/kg/day
U.S. EPA, 2021d: Final RfD based on critical effect of decreased serum total
thyroxine (T4) in newborn (postnatal day (PND) 1) mice after gestational
exposure to the mother.
DWI-BW
0.0354
L/kg-day
U.S. EPA, 2019. 9& percentile two-day average, consumer only estimate of
combined direct and indirect community water ingestion for women of
childbearing age (13 to <50 years) based on 2005-2010 NHANES.
RSC
0.2
N/A
U.S. EPA, 2021d. Based on a review of the current scientific literature.
PFBS Final Lifetime
Health Advisory = 0.002 mg/L or 2,000 ppt
(EPA 2022d)

Application of Health Advisories to Different Exposure Scenarios
Because the critical effects identified for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS are developmental effects that can potentially
result from short-term exposure to these PFAS during a critical period of development, EPA guidelines support
applying the lifetime health advisories for these three PFAS to both short-term and chronic risk assessment
scenarios (U.S. EPA, 1991).
The lifetime health advisory for GenX chemicals used a chronic RfD from the final EPA toxicity assessment (U.S.
EPA, 2021c) based on the critical effect of adverse liver effects in adults (parental females) from a subchronic
study (53-64 day exposure). In the assessment, a 10X UFs for subchronic to chronic exposure was applied to
derive the chronic RfD (U.S. EPA, 2021c). Because the critical effect identified for GenX chemicals is in adults,
the HA applies to chronic exposure scenarios. The HA was based on exposure to lactating women, an adult life
stage with the greatest drinking water intake rate. Application of the GenX chemicals HA to a shorter -term risk
assessment scenario would provide a conservative, health protective approach in the absence of other
information.
Consideration of Noncancer Health Risks from PFAS Mixtures
EPA recently released a Draft Framework for Estimating Noncancer Health Risks Associated with Mixtures of
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) that is currently undergoing SAB review (U.S. EPA, 2021e). That
draft document provides a flexible, data -driven framework that facilitates practical evaluation of two or more
PFAS based on current, available EPA chemical mixtures approaches and methods. Examples are presented for
three approaches —Hazard Index (HI), Relative Potency Factor (RPF), and Mixture BMD—to demonstrate
application to PFAS mixtures. To use these approaches, specific input values and information for each PFAS
are needed or can be developed.
The health advisory documents provide an example of how to use the HI approach to assess the potential
noncancer risk of a mixture of PFOA, PFOS, GenX chemicals, and PFBS (U.S. EPA, 2022 a-d). A mixture PFAS HI
can be calculated when health -based water concentrations (e.g., HAs, MCLGs) for a set of PFAS are available
or can be calculated. In the example, hazard quotients (HQs) are calculated by dividing the measured
component PFAS concentration in water (e.g., expressed as ng/L) by the relevant HA (e.g., expressed as ng/L),
as shown in the equation below. Component HQs are then summed across the PFAS mixture to yield the
mixture PFAS HI. A mixture PFAS HI greater than 1 indicates an exceedance of the health protective level and
indicates potential human health risk for noncancer effects from the PFAS mixture in water. When component
health -based water concentrations (in this case, HAs) are below the analytical method detection limit, as is the
case for PFOA and PFOS, such individual component HQs exceed 1, meaning that any detectable level of PFOA
or PFOS will result in an HI greater than 1 for the whole mixture. Further analysis could provide a refined
assessment of the potential for health effects associated with the individual PFAS and their contributions to
the potential joint toxicity associated with the mixture. For more details, please see U.S. EPA (2021e).
Where
HI — [PFOAwater] + ([PFOSw,t,J) + [Gen4ater] + [PFBSwater]
[PFOAHA] [PFOSHA] [GenXHA] ) ( [PFBSxA]
HI = hazard index;
[PFASwater] = concentration for a given PFAS in water;
[PFASHA] = the HA value for a given PFAS
5

Where can I find more information?
To view the HA documents, go to: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-advisories-has
To view the PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024, go to:
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024
For information on drinking water, go to: www.epa.gov/safewater
References
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk
Assessment. EPA-600-FR-91-001. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. Accessed April 2022.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-11/documents/dev tox.pdf.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000). EPA-822-13-00-004. EPA, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/methodology-wqc-
protection-hh-2000.pdf.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Process. EPA/630/P-02/002F. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. Accessed
May 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/rfd-final.pdf.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (PFOA). EPA-822-R-16-005. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed June 2022.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfoa health advisory final-
plain.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate (PFOS). EPA-822-R-16-004. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed June 2022.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/pfos health advisory final 508.pdf.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. Exposure Factors Handbook Chapter 3 (Update):
Ingestion of Water and Other Select Liquids. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-18/259F. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
02/documents/efh - chapter 3 update.pdf.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021a. External Peer Review Draft: Proposed Approaches to
the Derivation of a Draft Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) (CASRN
335-67-1) in Drinking Water. EPA- 822-D-21-001. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed April
2022. https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=100:18:16490947993:::RP,18:P18 ID:2601.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021b. External Peer Review Draft: Proposed Approaches to
the Derivation of a Draft Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)
CASRN 1763-23-1 in Drinking Water. EPA-822-D-21-002. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Accessed April 2022. https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=100:18:16490947993:::RP,18:P18 ID:2601.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021c. Human Health Toxicity Values for
Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid and Its Ammonium Salt (CASRN 13252-13-6 and CASRN
62037-80-3). Also Known as "GenX Chemicals." EPA/822/R-21/010. EPA, Office of Water, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/human-health-
N.

toxicity-assessments-genx-chemicals
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021d. Human Health Toxicity Values for Perfluorobutane
Sulfonic Acid (CASRN 375-73-5) and Related Compound Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (CASRN
29420-49-3). EPA/600/R-20/345F. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=350888.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021e. Draft Framework for Estimating Noncancer Health
Risks Associated with Mixtures of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). EPA-822-D-21-003. EPA,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=100:18:16490947993:::RP,18:Pl8 I D:2601
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022a. Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory:
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) CASRN 335-67-1. EPA/822/R-22/003. EPA, Office of Water, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-
advisories-has.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022b. Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory:
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) CASRN 1763-23-1. EPA/822/R-22/004. EPA, Office of Water,
Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-
health-advisories-has.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022c. Drinking Water Health Advisory:
Hexafluoropropylene Oxide (HFPO) Dimer Acid (CASRN 13252-13-6) and HFPO Dimer Acid Ammonium
Salt (CASRN 62037-80-3), Also Known as "GenX Chemicals." EPA/822/R-22/005. EPA, Office of Water,
Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-
health-advisories-has.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022d. Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorobutane
Sulfonic Acid (CASRN 375-73-5) and Related Compound Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (CASRN
29420-49-3). EPA/822/R-22/006. EPA, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-advisories-has.
7

ATTACHMENT 6

vAm Technical Fact Sheet —
United States E1,4-Dioxane
Environmental Protection
Agency
November 2017
Introduction
This fact sheet, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), provides a
summary of the emerging contaminant 1,4-dioxane, including physical and
chemical properties; environmental and health impacts; existing federal and
state guidelines; detection and treatment methods; and additional sources of
information. This fact sheet is intended for use by site managers who may
address 1,4-dioxane at cleanup sites or in drinking water supplies and for
those in a position to consider whether 1,4-dioxane should be added to the
analytical suite for site investigations.
1,4-Dioxane is a likely human carcinogen and has been found in
groundwater at sites throughout the United States. The physical and
chemical properties and behavior of 1,4-dioxane create challenges for its
characterization and treatment. It is highly mobile and does not readily
biodegrade in the environment.
What is 1,4-dioxane?
1,4-Dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical that is completely miscible
in water (EPA 2006; ATSDR 2012).
❖ Synonyms include dioxane, dioxan, p-dioxane, diethylene dioxide,
diethylene oxide, diethylene ether and glycol ethylene ether (EPA 2006;
ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is unstable at elevated temperatures and pressures and
may form explosive mixtures with prolonged exposure to light or air
(EPA 2006; HSDB 2011).
1,4-Dioxane is a likely contaminant at many sites contaminated with
certain chlorinated solvents (particularly 1,1,1-trichloroethane [TCA])
because of its widespread use as a stabilizer for chlorinated solvents
(EPA 2013a; Mohr 2001). Historically, the main use (90 percent) of 1,4-
dioxane was as a stabilizer of chlorinated solvents such as TCA
(ATSDR 2012). Use of TCA was phased out under the 1995 Montreal
Protocol and the use of 1,4-dioxane as a solvent stabilizer was
terminated (ECJRC 2002; NTP 2016). Lack of recent reports for other
previously reported uses suggest that many other industrial, commercial
and consumer uses were also stopped.
Disclaimer: The U.S. EPA prepared this fact sheet using the most recent publicly -
available scientific information; additional information can be obtained from the source
documents. This fact sheet is not intended to be used as a primary source of
information and is not intended, nor can it be relied on, to create any rights enforceable
by any party in litigation with the United States. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
United States Office of Land and Emergency EPA 505-F-17-011
Environmental Protection Agency Management (5106P) November 2017

It is a by-product present in many goods, including
paint strippers, dyes, greases, antifreeze and
aircraft deicing fluids, and in some consumer
products (deodorants, shampoos and cosmetics)
(ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
1,4-Dioxane is used as a purifying agent in the
manufacture of pharmaceuticals and is a by-
product in the manufacture of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic (Mohr 2001).
Traces of 1,4-dioxane may be present in some
food supplements, food containing residues from
packaging adhesives or on food crops treated with
pesticides that contain 1,4-dioxane (ATSDR 2012;
DHHS 2011).
Exhibit 1: Physical and Chemical Properties of 1,4-Dioxane (ATSDR 2012)
Property
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number
1.4-Dioxane
123-91-1
Physical description (physical state at room
temperature)
Clear, flammable liquid with a faint,
pleasant odor
Molecular weight (g/mol)
88.11
Water solubility
Miscible
Melting point (°C)
11.8
Boiling point CC) at 760 mm Hg
101.1
Vapor pressure at 250C (mm Hg)
38.1
Specific gravity
1.033
pariion coefficient (log Ka.,.)
12
-0.27
0Zin 7ther
Organic carbon partition coefficient (log Ka)
1.23
Henrys law constant at 250C (abnin3/mot)
4.80 X 10
Abbreviations: g/mol- grams per mole;°C- degrees Celsius;mmHg - millimeters of mercury; atm-m3/mol-atmosphere-
cubic meters per mole
Existence of 1,4-dioxane in the environment
1,4-Dioxane is typically found at some solvent
release sites and PET manufacturing facilities
(ATSDR 2012; Mohr 2001).
It is short-lived in the atmosphere, with an
estimated 1- to 3-day half-life due to
photooxidation (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011).
Migration to groundwater is weakly retarded by
sorption of 1,4-dioxane to soil particles; it is
expected to move rapidly from soil to groundwater
(EPA 2006; ATSDR 2012).
It is relatively resistant to biodegradation in water
and soil, although recent studies have identified
degrading bacteria (Inoue 2016; Pugazhendi
2015; Sales 2013).
It does not bioaccumulate, biomagnify, or
bioconcentrate in the food chain (ATSDR 2012;
Mohr 2001).
1,4-Dioxane is frequently present at sites with TCA
contamination (Mohr 2001; Adamson 2014).
It may migrate rapidly in groundwater, ahead of
other contaminants (DHHS 2011; EPA 2006).
Where delineated, 1,4-dioxane is frequently found
within previously delineated chlorinated solvent
plumes and existing monitoring networks
(Adamson 2014).
As of 2016, 1,4-dioxane had been identified at
more than 34 sites on the EPA National Priorities
List (NPL); it may be present (but samples were
not analyzed for it) at many other sites (EPA
2016b).

What are the routes of exposure and the potential health effects of 1,4-
dioxane?
❖ Exposure may occur through ingestion of
contaminated food and water, or dermal contact.
Worker exposures may include inhalation of
vapors (ATSDR 2012; DHHS 2011; EU 2002).
❖ Potential exposure could occur during production
and use of 1,4-dioxane as a stabilizer or solvent
(DHHS 2011; EU 2002).
Short-term exposure to high levels of 1,4-dioxane
may result in nausea, drowsiness, headache, and
irritation of the eyes, nose and throat (ATSDR
2012; EPA 2013b; NIOSH 2O10; EU 2002). 1,4-
Dioxane is readily absorbed through the lungs and
gastrointestinal tract. Some 1,4-dioxane may also
pass through the skin, but studies indicate that
much of it will evaporate before it is absorbed.
Distribution is rapid and uniform in the lung, liver,
kidney, spleen, colon and skeletal muscle tissue
(ATSDR 2012).
1,4-Dioxane is weakly genotoxic and reproductive
effects in humans are unknown; however, a
developmental study on rats indicated that 1,4-
dioxane may be slightly toxic to the developing
fetus (ATSDR 2012; Giavini and others 1985).
❖ Animal studies showed increased incidences of
nasal cavity, liver and gall bladder tumors after
exposure to 1,4-dioxane (ATSDR 2012; DHHS
2011; EPA IRIS 2013).
❖ EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as "likely to be
carcinogenic to humans" by all routes of exposure
(EPA IRIS 2013).
The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services states that "1,4-dioxane is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies
in experimental animals" (DHHS 2011).
❖ The National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) considers 1,4-dioxane a potential
occupational carcinogen (NIOSH 2O10).
❖ The European Union has classified 1,4-dioxane as
having limited evidence of carcinogenic effect (EU
2002).
Are there any federal and state guidelines and health standards for 1,4-
dioxane?
❖ EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
database includes a chronic oral reference dose
(RfD) of 0.03 milligrams per kilogram per day
(mg/kg/day) based on liver and kidney toxicity in
animals and a chronic inhalation reference
concentration (RfC) of 0.03 milligrams per cubic
meter (mg/m3) based on atrophy and respiratory
metaplasia inside the nasal cavity of animals (EPA
IRIS 2013).
❖ The cancer risk assessment for 1,4-dioxane is
based on an oral slope factor of 0.1 mg/kg/day
and the drinking water unit risk is 2.9 x 10-6
micrograms per liter (pg/L) (EPA IRIS 2013).
❖ EPA risk assessments indicate that the drinking
water concentration representing a 1 x 10-6 cancer
risk level for 1,4-dioxane is 0.35 pg/L (EPA IRIS
2013).
❖ No federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
drinking water has been established (EPA 2012).
❖ 1,4-Dioxane is included on the fourth drinking
water contaminant candidate list and is included in
the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (EPA 2009; EPA 2016a).
❖ EPA's drinking water equivalent level is 1 mg/L
(EPA 2012). EPA has calculated a screening level
of 0.46 pg/L for tap water, based on a 1 in 10-6
lifetime excess cancer risk (EPA 2017b).
❖ EPA established a 1-day health advisory of 4.0
milligrams per liter (mg/L) and a 10-day health
advisory of 0.4 mg/L in drinking water for a 10-
kilogram child and a lifetime health advisory of 0.2
mg/L in drinking water (EPA 2012).
❖ EPA has calculated a residential soil screening
level (SSL) of 5.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
and an industrial SSL of 24 mg/kg. The soil -to -
groundwater risk -based SSL is 9.4 x 10-5 mg/kg
(EPA 2017b).
❖ EPA has calculated a residential air screening
level of 0.56 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3)
and an industrial air screening level of 2.5 pg/m3
(EPA 2017b).
❖ A reportable quantity of 100 pounds has been
established under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (EPA 2011).
❖ The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) established a permissible
3

exposure limit (PEL) for 1,4-dioxane of 100 parts
per million (ppm) or 360 mg/m' as an 8-hour time
weighted average (TWA). While OSHA has
established a PEL for 1,4-dioxane, OSHA has
recognized that many of its PELs are outdated and
inadequate for ensuring the protection of worker
health. OSHA recommends that employers follow
the California OSHA limit of 0.28 ppm, the NOSH
recommended exposure limit of 1 ppm as a 30-
minute ceiling, or the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold limit
value of 20 ppm (OSHA 2017).
Various states have established drinking water
and groundwater guidelines, including the
following:
Alaska
77
AL DEC 2016
California
1.0
Cal/EPA 2011
Colorado
0.35
CDPHE 2017
Connecticut
3.0
CTDPH 2O13
Delaware
6.0
DE DNR 1999
Florida
3.2
FDEP 2005
Indiana
7.8
IDEM 2015
Maine
4.0
MEDEP 2016
Massachusetts
0.3
MADEP 2004
Mississippi
6.09
MS DEQ 2002
New Hampshire
0.25
NH DES 2011
New Jersey
0.4
NJDEP 2015
North Carolina
3.0
NCDENR 2015
Pennsylvania
6.4
PADEP 2011
Texas
9.1
TCEQ 2016
Vermont
3.0
VTDEP 2016
Washington
0.438
WA ECY 2015
West Virginia
6.1
WV DEP 2009
What detection and site characterization methods are available for 1,4-
dioxane?
As a result of the limitations in the analytical
methods to detect 1,4-dioxane, it has been difficult
to identify its occurrence in the environment. The
miscibility of 1,4-dioxane in water causes poor
purging efficiency and results in high detection
limits (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2006; Mohr 2001).
4 The Contract Laboratory Program SOW SOM02.3
includes a CRQL of 2.0 pg/L in water, 67 pg/kg in
low soil and 2,000 pg/kg in medium soil (EPA
2013c).
Conventional analytical methods can detect 1,4-
dioxane only at concentrations 100 times greater
than the concentrations of volatile organic
compounds. Modifications of existing analytical
methods and their sample preparation procedures
may be needed to achieve lower detection limits
for 1,4-dioxane (EPA 2006; Mohr 2001).
High -temperature sample preparation techniques
improve the recovery of 1,4-dioxane. These
techniques include purging at elevated
temperature (EPA SW-846 Method 5030);
equilibrium headspace analysis (EPA SW-846
Method 5021); vacuum distillation (EPA SW-846
Method 8261); and azeotropic distillation (EPA
SW-846 Method 5031) (EPA 2006).
NOSH Method 1602 uses gas chromatography —
flame ionization detection (GC-FID) to determine
the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in air (ATSDR
2012; NIOSH 2O10).
:• EPA SW-846 Method 8015D uses gas
chromatography (GC) to determine the
concentration of 1,4-dioxane in environmental
samples. Samples may be introduced into the GC
column by a variety of techniques including the
injection of the concentrate from azeotropic
distillation (EPA SW-846 Method 5031). The lower
quantitation limits for 1,4-dioxane in aqueous
matrices by azeotropic microdistillation are 12 pg/L
(reagent water), 15 pg/L (groundwater) and 16
pg/L (leachate) (EPA 2003).
.• EPA SW-846 Method 8260B detects 1,4-dioxane
in a variety of solid waste matrices using GC and
mass spectrometry (MS). The detection limit

depends on the instrument and choice of sample
preparation method (ATSDR 2012).
❖ A laboratory study is underway to develop a
passive flux meter (PFM) approach to enhance the
capture of 1,4-dioxane in the PFM sorbent to
improve accuracy. Results to date show that the
PFM is capable of quantifying low absorbing
compounds such as 1,4-dioxane (DoD SERDP
2013b).
❖ EPA Method 1624 uses isotopic dilution gas
chromatography — mass spectrometry (GC -MS) to
detect 1,4-dioxane in water, soil and municipal
discharges. The detection limit for this method is
10 pg/L (ATSDR 2012; EPA 2001 b).
❖ EPA SW-846 Method 8270 uses liquid -liquid
extraction and isotope dilution by capillary column
GC -MS. This method is often modified for the
detection of low levels of 1,4-dioxane in water
(EPA 2007).
❖ EPA Method 522 uses solid phase extraction and
GC -MS with selected ion monitoring for the
detection of 1,4-dioxane in drinking water with
detection limits as low as 0.02 pg/L (EPA 2008).
❖ GC -MS detection methods using solid phase
extraction followed by desorption with an organic
solvent have been developed to remove 1,4-
dioxane from the aqueous phase. Detection limits
as low as 0.03 pg/L have been achieved by
passing the aqueous sample through an activated
carbon column, following by elution with acetone-
dichloromethane (ATSDR 2012; Kadokami and
others 1990).
❖ Lab studies indicate effective methods for
monitoring growth of dioxane-degrading bacteria
in culture (Gedalanga 2014).
❖ Studies are underway to develop and assess
methods for performing compound -specific isotope
analysis (CSIA) on low levels of 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater (DoD SERDP 2016).
What technologies are being used to treat 1,4-dioxane?
❖ Pump -and -treat remediation can treat dissolved
1,4-dioxane in groundwater and control
groundwater plume migration, but requires ex -situ
treatment tailored for the unique properties of 1,4-
dioxane (e.g., its low octanol-water partition
coefficient makes 1,4-dioxane hydrophilic) (EPA
2006; Kiker and others 2010).
❖ Commercially available advanced oxidation
processes using hydrogen peroxide with ultraviolet
light or ozone can be used to treat 1,4-dioxane in
wastewater (Asano and others 2012; EPA 2006).
❖ Peroxone and iron activated persulfate oxidation
of 1,4-dioxane might aid in the cleanup of VOC-
contaminated sites (Eberle 2015; Zhong 2015; Li
2016; SERDP 2013d).
❖ In -situ chemical oxidation can be successfully
combined with bioaugmentation for managing
dioxane contamination (DoD SERDP 2013d;
Adamson 2015).
❖ Ex -situ bioremediation using a fixed -film, moving -
bed biological treatment system is also used to
treat 1,4-dioxane in groundwater (EPA 2006).
❖ Electrical resistance heating may be an effective
treatment method (Oberle 2015).
❖ Phytoremediation is being explored as a means to
remove the compound from shallow groundwater.
Pilot -scale studies have demonstrated the ability
of hybrid poplars to take up and effectively
degrade or deactivate 1,4-dioxane (EPA 2001 a,
2013a; Ferro and others 2013).
❖ Microbial degradation in engineered bioreactors
has been documented under enhanced conditions
or where selected strains of bacteria capable of
degrading 1,4-dioxane are cultured, but the impact
of the presence of chlorinated solvent co -
contaminants on biodegradation of 1,4-dioxane
needs to be further investigated (EPA 2006,
2013a; Mahendra and others 2013).
❖ Results from a 2012 laboratory study found 1,4-
dioxane-transforming activity to be relatively
common among monooxygenase-expressing
bacteria; however, both TCA and 1,1-
dichloroethene inhibited 1,4-dioxane degradation
by bacterial isolates (DoD SERDP 2012).
❖ Isobutane-metabolizing bacteria can consistently
degrade low (<100 ppb) concentrations of 1,4-
dioxane, often to concentrations <1 ppb. These
organisms also can degrade many chlorinated co -
contaminants such as TCA and 1,1-dichoroethene
(1,1-DCE) (DoD SERDP 2013c).
❖ Ethane effectively serves as a cometabolite for
facilitating the biodegradation of 1,4-dioxane at
relevant field concentrations (DoD SERDP 2013f).
❖ Biodegradation rates are subject to interactions
among transition metals and natural organic
ligands in the environment. (Pornwongthong 2014;
DoD SERDP 2013e).
5

❖ Photocatalysis has been shown to remove 1,4-
dioxane in aqueous solutions. Laboratory studies
documented that the surface plasmon resonance
of gold nanoparticles on titanium dioxide (Au -
Ti02) promotes the photocatalytic degradation of
1,4-dioxane (Min and others 2009; Vescovi and
others 2010).
❖ Other in -well combined treatment technologies
being assessed include air sparging; soil vapor
extraction (SVE); enhanced bioremediation-
oxidation; and dynamic subsurface groundwater
circulation (Odah and others 2005).
❖ 1,4-Dioxane was reduced by greater than 90
percent in the treatment zone with no apparent
downward migration of 1,4-dioxane using
enhanced or extreme SVE, which uses a
combination of increased air flow, sweeping with
drier air, increased temperature, decreased
infiltration and more focused vapor extraction to
enhance 1,4-dioxane remediation in soils (DoD
SERDP 2013a).
Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane?
❖ Adamson, D. Mahendra S., Walker, K, Rauch, S.,
Sengupta, S., and C. Newell. 2014. "A Multisite
Survey to Identify the Scale of the 1,4-Dioxane
Problem at Contaminated Groundwater Sites."
Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 1
(5). Pages 254 to 258.
❖ Adamson, D., Anderson R., Mahendra, S., and C.
Newell. 2015. "Evidence of 1,4-Dioxane
Attenuation at Groundwater Sites Contaminated
with Chlorinated Solvents and 1,4-Dioxane."
Environmental Science and Technology. Volume
49 (11). Pages 6510 to 6518.
❖ Alaska Department of Environmental (AL DEC).
2008. "Groundwater Cleanup Levels."
dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/quidance forms/docs/Gro
undwater Cleanup Levels.pdf
❖ Asano, M., Kishimoto, N., Shimada, H., and Y.
Ono. 2012. "Degradation of 1,4-Dioxane Using
Ozone Oxidation with UV Irradiation (Ozone/UV)
Treatment." Journal of Environmental Science and
Engineering. Volume A (1). Pages 371 to 379.
❖ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). 2012. "Toxicological Profile for
1,4-Dioxane." www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
toxprofiles/TP.asp?id=955&tid=199
❖ California Department of Public Health (CDPH).
2011. "1,4-Dioxane." Drinking Water Systems.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking water/certlic/dri
nkingwater/14-Dioxane.shtml
❖ Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment (CDPHE). 2017. "The Basic
Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water."
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/
31 2017-03.pdf
❖ Connecticut Department of Public Health
(CTDEP). 2013. "Action Level List for Private
Wells."
www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental health/eoh
a/groundwater well contamination/110916 ct act
ion level list nov 2016 update.pdf
❖ Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DE DNREC). 1999.
"Remediation Standards Guidance."
www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Divisions/AW
M/sirb/DOCS/PDFS/Misc/RemStnd.pdf
❖ European Chemicals Bureau. 2002. European
Union Risk Assessment Report 1,4-Dioxane.
echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/a4e83a6a-
c421-4243-a8df-3e84893082aa
❖ Ferro, A.M., Kennedy, J., and J.C. LaRue. 2013.
"Phytoremediation of 1,4-Dioxane-Containing
Recovered Groundwater." International Journal of
Phytoremediation. Volume 15. Pages 911 to 923.
❖ Gedalanga, P., Pornwongthong, P., Mora, R.,
Chiang, S., Baldwin, B., Ogles, D., and S.
Mahendra. 2014. "Identification of Biomarker
Genes to Predict Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane."
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Volume
10. Pages 3209 to 3218.
❖ Giavini, E., Vismara, C., and M.L Broccia. 1985.
"Teratogenesis Study of Dioxane in Rats."
Toxicology Letters. Volume 26 (1). Pages 85 to
88.
❖ Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). 2011.
"1,4-Dioxane." toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
❖ Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM). 2016. "IDEM Screening and
Closure Levels." www.in.gov/idem/
landguality/files/risc screening table 2016.pdf
❖ Inoue, D., Tsunoda, T., Sawada, K., Yamamoto,
N., Saito, Y., Sei, K., and M. Ike. 2016. "1,4-
Dioxane degradation potential of members of the
genera Pseudonocardia and Rhodococcus."
Biodegradation. Volume 27. Pages 277 to 286.
C.1

Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ Kadokami, K., Koga, M., and A. Otsuki. 1990.
"Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometric
Determination of Traces of Hydrophilic and
Volatile Organic Compounds in Water after
Preconcentration with Activated Carbon."
Analytical Sciences. Volume 6 (6). Pages 843 to
849.
❖ Kiker, J.H., Connolly, J.B., Murray, W.A., Pearson,
S.C., Reed, S.E., and R.J. Robert. 2010. "Ex -Situ
Wellhead Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane Using
Fenton's Reagent." Proceedings of the Annual
International Conference on Soils, Sediments,
Water and Energy. Volume 15, Article 18.
❖ Li, B., and J. Zhu. 2016. "Simultaneous
Degradation Of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane and Solvent
Stabilizer 1,4-Dioxane by a Sono -Activated
Persulfate Process." Chemical Engineering
Journal. Volume 284 (15). Pages 750 to 763.
❖ Mahendra, S., Grostern, A., and L. Alvarez -Cohen
2013. "The Impact of Chlorinated Solvent Co -
Contaminants on the Biodegradation Kinetics of
1,4-Dioxane." Chemosphere. Volume 91 (1).
Pages 88 to 92.
❖ Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(MEDEP). 2016. "Maine Remedial Action
Guidelines (RAGs) for Sites Contaminated with
Hazardous Substances."
www.maine.gov/dep/spills/publications/guidance/r
aqs/M E-RAGS-Revised-Final 020516. pdf
❖ Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (Mass DEP). 2012. "Standards and
Guidelines or Contaminants in Massachusetts
Drinking Waters." www.mass.gov/eea/
agencies/massdep/water/drinking/standards/stand
ards-and-guidelines-for-drinking-water-
contaminants.html
❖ Min, B.K., Heo, J.E., Youn, N.K., Joo, O.S., Lee,
H., Kim, J.H., and H.S. Kim. 2009. "Tuning of the
Photocatalytic 1,4-Dioxane Degradation with
Surface Plasmon Resonance of Gold
Nanoparticles on Titania." Catalysis
Communications. Volume 10 (5). Pages 712 to
715.
❖ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
(MS DEQ). 2002. "Risk Evaluation Procedures for
Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment of
Brownfield Sites." www.deg.state.ms.us/
MDEQ.nsf/pdf/CARD brownfieldrisk/$File/Proced.
pdf
❖ Mohr, T.K.G. 2001. "1,4-Dioxane and Other
Solvent Stabilizers White Paper." Santa Clara
Valley Water District of California. San Jose,
California.
❖ National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH). 2010. "Dioxane." NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards.
www.cdc.gov/niosh/npq/npqd0237.html
❖ New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NH DES). 2011. "Change in Reporting
Limit for 1,4-Dioxane." www.des.nh.gov/
organ ization/divisions/waste/hwrb/sss/hwrp/docum
ents/report-limits 14dioxane. pdf
❖ New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP). 2015. "Interim Ground Water
Quality Standards." www.no.gov/dep/wms/
bears/qwqs interim criteria table.htm
❖ North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ). 2013. "Groundwater
Classification and Standards."
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resou rces/water-resources-rules/nc-
admin istrative-code-statutes
❖ Oberle, D. Crownover, E., and M. Kluger. 2015. "In
Situ Remediation of 1,4-Dioxane Using Electrical
Resistance Heating." Remediation Journal.
Volume 25 (2). Pages 35 to 42.
❖ Odah, M.M., Powell, R., and D.J. Riddle. 2005.
"ART In -Well Technology Proves Effective in
Treating 1,4-Dioxane Contamination."
Remediation Journal. Volume 15 (3). Pages 51 to
64.
❖ Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). 2017 Permissible Exposure Limits -
Annotated Tables, Table Z-1. www.osha.
gov/dsq/annotated-gels/index.html
❖ Pornwongthong, P., Mulchandani A., Gedalanga,
P.B., and S. Mahendra. 2014. "Transition Metals
and Organic Ligands Influence Biodegradation of
1,4-Dioxane." Applied Biochemistry and
Biotechnology. Volume 173 (1). Pages 291 to 306.
7

Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ Pugazhendi, A., Banu, J., Dhavamani, J., and I.
Yeom. 2015. "Biodegradation of 1,4-dioxane by
RhodanobacterAYS5 and the Role of Additional .;.
Substrates." Annals of Microbiology. Volume 645.
Pages 2201 to 2208.
❖ Sales, C., Grostrem, A., Parales, J., Parales, R.,
and L. Alvarez -Cohen. 2013. "Oxidation of the
Cyclic Ethers 1,4-Dioxane and Tetrahydrofuran by
a Monooxygenase in Two Pseudonocardia
species." Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Volume 79. Pages 7702 to 7708.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
2016. "Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP)
Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs)."
www.tceg.texas.gov/remediation/trrp/trrppcls.html
❖ U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Strategic
Environmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP). 2012. "Oxygenase-Catalyzed
Biodegradation of Emerging Water Contaminants:
1,4-Dioxane and N-Nitrosodimethylamine." ER-
1417. www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-
Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-1417
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013a. "1,4-Dioxane Remediation
by Extreme Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE)." ER-
201326. www.serdp-estcp.orq/Program-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-
Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-201326
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013b. "Development of a Passive
Flux Meter Approach to Quantifying 1,4-Dioxane
Mass Flux." ER-2304. www.serdp-
estcp.orq/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contaminated-
Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2304
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013c. "Evaluation of Branched
Hydrocarbons as Stimulants for In Situ
Cometabolic Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane and
Its Associated Co -Contaminants." ER-2303.
www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-
Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2303
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013d. "Facilitated Transport
Enabled In Situ Chemical Oxidation of 1,4-
Dioxane-Contaminated Groundwater." ER-2302
www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-
Groundwater/Emeraina-Issues/ER-2302
DoD SERDP. 2013e. "In Situ Biodegradation of
1,4-Dioxane: Effects of Metals and Chlorinated
Solvent Co -Contaminants." ER-2300. www.serdp-
estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-
Restoration/Contaminated-
Groundwater/Emeraina-Issues/ER-2300
❖ DoD SERDP. 2013f. "In Situ Bioremediation of
1,4-Dioxane by Methane Oxidizing Bacteria in
Coupled Anaerobic -Aerobic Zones." ER-2306.
www. se rd p-e stcp . o rg/P roq ra m-
Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-
Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2306
❖ DoD SERDP. 2016. "Extending the Applicability of
Compound -Specific Isotope Analysis to Low
Concentrations of 1,4-Dioxane." ER-2535.
www. se rd p-e stcp . o rg/P roq ra m-
Areas/Environ mental-Restoration/Contaminated-
Grou ndwater/Emergi nq-Issues/ER-2535/E R-2535
❖ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS). 2014. "Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth
Edition." Public Health Service, National
Toxicology Program. 13th Edition.
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/dioxane.
pdf
❖ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1996a. "Method 8260B: Volatile Organic
Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS)."
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
12/documents/8260b.pdf
❖ EPA. 2001 a. "Brownfields Technology Primer:
Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site
Cleanup." EPA 542-R-01-006.
www.brownfieldstsc.orq/pdfs/phytoremprimer.pdf
❖ EPA. 2001 b. "Appendix A To Part 136—Methods
For Organic Chemical Analysis Of Municipal And
Industrial Wastewater, Method 1624." Code of
Federal Regulations. Code of Federal
Regulations. 40 CFR Part 136.
❖ EPA. 2003. "Method 8015D: Nonhalogenated
Organics Using GC/FID." SW-846.
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
12/documents/8015d r4.Ddf
11

Where can I find more information about 1,4-dioxane? (continued)
❖ EPA. 2006. "Treatment Technologies for 1,4-
Dioxane: Fundamentals and Field Applications."
EPA 542-R-06-009. clu-
in.org/download/remed/542r06009.pdf
❖ EPA. 2007. "Method 8270D: Semivolatile Organic
Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS)."
www.epa.gov/sites/prod uction/files/2015-
07/documents/epa-8270d. pdf
❖ EPA. 2008. "Method 522: Determination of 1,4-
Dioxane in Drinking Water By Solid Phase
Extraction (SPE) and Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS) with Selected Ion
Monitoring (SIM)." EPA/600/R-08/101.
cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirE
ntryld=199229
❖ EPA. 2009. "Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List 3 — Final." Federal Register Notice
www.federairegister.qov/articles/2009/10/08/E9-
24287/d rinki ng-water-contaminant-candidate-list-
3-final
❖ EPA. 2011. "Reportable Quantities of Hazardous
Substances Designated Pursuant to Section 311
of the Clean Water Act. Code of Federal
Regulations." 40 CFR 302.4.
www.qpo.gov/fdsys/pkq/CFR-201 1-title40-
vol28/pdf/CFR-201 1 -title40-voI28-sec302-4. pdf
❖ EPA. 2012. "2012 Edition of Drinking Water
Standards and Health Advisories."
www.epa.gov/sites/prod uction/files/2015-
09/documents/dwstandards2012.pdf
❖ EPA. 2013a. "1,4-Dioxane." clu-
in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/1,4-
D ioxane/cat/Overview/
❖ EPA. 2013b. "1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)."
Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website.
semspub.epa.gov/work/09/2129341.pdf
❖ EPA. 2013c. "EPA Contract Laboratory Program
Statement of Work for Organic Superfund
Methods SOM02.3." www.epa.gov/clp/epa-
Contact Information
contract -la boratory-prog ram -statement -work -
organ ic-superfund-methods-multi-media-multi-0
❖ EPA. 2016a. "Contaminant Candidate List 4-CCL
4." www.epa.gov/ccl/draft-contaminant-candidate-
list-4-ccl-4
❖ EPA. 2016b. Superfund Information Systems.
Superfund Site Information. cumulis.epa.
gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
❖ EPA. 2017b. Regional Screening Level (RSL)
Summary Table. www.epa.gov/risk/regional-
screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables-may-2016
❖ EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
2013. "1,4-Dioxane (CASRN 123-91-1)."
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemical Land ing.cfm?su
bstance nmbr=326
❖ Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (VTDEC). 2016. "Interim
Groundwater Quality Standards."
dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/interim
gwgstandards 2016.pdf
❖ Vescovi, T., Coleman, H., and R. Amal. 2010.
"The Effect of pH on UV -Based Advanced
Oxidation Technologies - 1,4-Dioxane
Degradation." Journal of Hazardous Materials.
Volume 182. Pages 75 to 79.
❖ Washington Department of Ecology (ECY). 2015.
"Groundwater Methods B and A ARARs."
fortress.wa.gov/ecy/clarc/FocusSheets/Groundwat
er%20Methods%20B%20and%20A%20and%20A
RARs.pdf
❖ West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WV DEP). 2009. "Voluntary
Remediation and Redevelopment Rule."
www.dep.wv.qov/dlr/oer/voluntarymain/Documents
/60CSR3%20VRRA°/a20rule%206-5-09.pdf
❖ Zhong, H., Brusseau, M., Wang, Y., Yan, N., Quiq,
L., and G. Johnson. 2015. "In -Situ Activation of
Persulfate by Iron Filings and Degradation of 1,4-
Dioxane" Water Research. Volume 83. Pages 104
to 111.
If you have any questions or comments on this fact sheet, please contact: Mary Cooke, FFRRO, at
cooke.maryt(a�epa.gov.
9

ATTACHMENT 7

North Carolina In -Stream Target Values for Surface Waters
Established per language in 15A NCAC 02B .0202 & .0208. Contact DWR staff for further information.
Freshwater Fresh & Salt Saltwater
Class WS All waters All waters (Class C All waters Supplemental
Class B Class 5B Gass 5A
Class C & SC Class SC Classifications
Aquatic Life' &
Aquatic Life' &
High
Primary
Water
6
Secondary
FishConsumption3
Secondary
Primary
s
5hellfish9
Troutz
Swamp
s
Quality
Synonyms &other
Cancer
Reference Source {See
Pollutant or Parameter
CAS #
Recreationa
Supply
4
Recreation
4
Recreation
Recreation
Waters
Waters
Information
io
Endpoint
supporting info tab)
(FC & WS)
All values reported as ug/L unless labeled otherwise.
1,2-Dihydro-acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
60
20
29
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
(non -carcinogen PAH)
Acetaldehyde
75-07-0
970
1400
Acetic Aldehyde, Ethanal
NA
ECOTOX 6/05
Acephate
30560-19-1
4
70
140
150000
1
1
Yes
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
IRIS 1/07; HHWSSA
Acetochlor
34256-82-1
510
23
1900
No
1989 & 1994
Acetone
67-64-1
3100
2000
11ODD00
300000
2-Propanone
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 1/07
Acetophenone
98-86-2
3500
8100
850000
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 8/07
Acrolein
107-02-8
1
2-Propenal
NA
ECOTOX 7/16
Acrylamide
79-06-1
0,008
2800
0.3
1500
2-Propenamide
Yes
IRIS & ECOTOX 10/07
2-Propenenitrile; ACN; AN;
Acrylonotrile
107-13-1
420
290
Acrylonitrile; Cya n oeth ylene;
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Fumigrain; Vinyl Cyanide
Aluminum
7429-90-5
6500
8000
No
RAIS 1/09
Aluminum Sulfate
10043-01-3
12
2.2
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
ECOTOX 2/07 & RAIS
2-Amino-4,6-Dinitrotoluene
35572-78-2
7
10
150
2A-ONT
No
2/16
ECOTOX 2/07 & RAIS
4-Amino-2,6-Dinitrotoluene
19406-51-0
7
350
150
4A-DNT
No
2/16
Ammonium Sulfate
7783-20-2
1900
20
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Anthracene
1 120-12-7
1
1
1 0.05
1
1
Non -carcinogen PAH
NA
ECOTOX 3/05

Antimony
7440-36-0
5300
NA
ECOTOX 6/12
Atrazine
1912-24-9
640
8200
No
OPPT 2003; RAIS 3/09
ECOTOX 9/15 & IRIS
Barium
7440-39-3
21000
200000 (t)
25000
No
11/08
Benefin
1861-40-1
340
12
350
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 1/07
Bentazon
25057-89-0
920
3000
7400
1000
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 10/10
Also see the NC 02B Standards
Benz(a)anthracene
56-55-3
0.1
NA
ECOTOX 7/16
table for Total PAHs
Also see the NC 02B Standards
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.05
NA
ECOTOX 7/16
table for Total PAHs
ECOTOX 9/15 & RAIS
Benzoic Acid
65-85-0
140000
9000
5000000
No
2/16
Benzyl Alcohol
100-51-6
3500
500
290000
750
Benzene Methanol
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 6/12
Alpha-chlorotoluene,
Benzyl Chloride
100-44-7
0.2
2
Yes
ECOTOX &IRIS 6/12
Chloromethyl Benzene
biphenyl, Phenylbenzene,
1,1-Biphenyl
92-52-4
580
20
860
230
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 7/09
Bibenzene
ECOTOX 9/15 & RAIS1/07
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane
111-91-1
100
9200
6000
Dichloromethoxy Ethane
No
Bis(2-Ethy1hexyl)Phthalate
117-81-7
5
10
DEHP
NA
ECOTOX 9/15
Chronic = 150
Boron
7440-42-8
NA
ECOTOX 7/16
Acute = 1500
p-Bromo-diphenyl Ether
101-55-3
2
0.4
4-Bromo-diphenyl Ether
NA
ECOTOX 6/12
2-Butanone
78-93-3
20000
26000
750000
20000
Methyl Ethyl Ketone, MEK
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 7/11
IRIS, ECOTOX & RAIS
Butylate
2008-41-5
470
610
650
Sutan
No
1/07
ECOTOX 9/15 & RAIS2/11
n-Butyl Benzene
104-51-8
420
3.9
550
1-Phenylbutane
No
Butylbenzene Phthalate
85-68-7
19
5.1
8.2
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
NA
ECOTOX 1/07

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
(TPH); n-Hexane as surrogate
ECOTOX 1/10; MADEP
C5-C8 Aliphatic
NA
600 (5)
125 (S)
900 (S)
for aquatic life, water supply
No
toxicity studies 2004,
& human health. See
Connecticut technical
"Supporting Info" tab for
support document 2012
information on (S).
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
(TPH); Decane as surrogate for
C9-C12 Aliphatic
NA
3000 (S)
180 (S)
10000 (S)
5000 (S)
aquatic life, water supply &
No
MADEP toxicity studies
human health. See
2004 & EPIWIN 7/03
"Supporting Info" tab for
information on (S).
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
(TPH); Decane as surrogate for
C9-C18 Aliphatic
NA
3000 (S)
180 (S)
10000 (S)
5000 (S)
aquatic life, water supply &
No
MADEP toxicity studies
human health. See
2004 & EPIWIN 7/03
"Supporting Info" tab for
information on (S).
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
(TPH); pyrene as surrogate.
RAIS 2/07; surrogate
C9-C32 Aromatic
NA
830 (S)
4000 (S)
No
See "Supporting Info" tab for
from MADEP studies
information on (S).
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
(TPH); Cyclododecane as
C19-C36 Aliphatic
NA
210 (S)
surrogate. See "Supporting
No
MADEP toxicity studies
2004 & EPIWIN 7/03
Info" tab for information on
(S).
Formerly Sevin 1-Naphtalenol,
Carbaryl
63-25-2
3100
0.67
31000
0.35
N o
ECOTOX &RAIS 1/07
Methylcarbamate
IRIS, ECOTOX & RAIS
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.7
1.2
Yes
8/12
Carbofuran
1563-66-2
9.7
0.46
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
ECOTOX 9/15 & RAIS
Carbon Disulfide
75-15-0
3000
100
20000
3300
Dithiocarbonic Anhydride
No
6/12

Carbon Tetrachloride
56-23-5
560
2500
Benzinoform, Carbon Chloride
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
Chlorinated Benzene, Phenyl
108-90-7
140
500
NA
ECOTOX 2/11
Chloride
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
110
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
Chlorothalonil
1897-45-6
7
1.3
20
1.6
0.8
Yes
IRIS & ECOTOX 10/10
Also see the NC 02B Standards
Chrysene
218-01-9
10
NA
ECOTOX 7/16
table for Total PAFis
Fish consumption and water
Acute: 16
ECOTOX 01/18 &
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3
4
supply values based on pRfD
No
Chronic: 1.6
PPRTV 6/09
(PPRTV)
Cyclohexane
110-82-7
230
12
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
2,4-D
94-75-7
60
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 1/07
Dacthal
1861-32-1
79
100
No
IRIS 7/07
2,4-DB
94-82-6
270
10000
No
IRIS 8/07
4,4'Dichlorodiphenyldichloroe
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
0.00031
0.00031
Yes
RAIS 1/07
thane
P, p'-
4,4'-DDE
72-55-9
0.00022
0.00022
Dichlorodiphenyldochloroethy
Yes
RAIS 1/07
lene
Demeton
8065-48-3
0.1
0.1
NA
EPA QCW 1986
Diazinon
333-41-5
0.17
0.82
NA
EPA AWQC 2005
Also see the NC 02B Standards
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
5
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
table for Total PAFis
1,2-Dibromo-3
96 12 8
0.033
0.13
Nemagon
Yes
IRIS 1/07
chloropropane
1,2—Dibromomethane
106-93-4
0.02
0.1
EDB, Ethylene Dibromide
Yes
IRIS 8/10
2,5-Dichloro-6-
Dicamba
1918-00-9
1000
200
38000
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 10/10
methoxybenzoic acid
Dichloroacetic Acid
79-43-6
0.68
25
DCAA, DCA
Yes
IRIS 1/07
1,2-(o)-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
470
370
79
Chlorinated Benzene
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
1,3-(m)-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
390
390
Chlorinated Benzene
NA
ECOTOX & RAIS 1/07
1,4-(p)-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
100
56
Chlorinated Benzene
NA
ECOTOX & RAIS 1/07

Dichlorobromomethane
75-27-4
0.55
17
Yes
RAIS 1/07
1,1-Dichloroethane
75-34-3
6
100
Yes
Handbook of
Environmental Data-
Vershauen RAIS 6 10
1,2-cis-Dichloroethylene
156-59-2
60
720
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene
No
IRIS 7/11
1,2-Dichloroethylene Mixed
Isomers
540-59-0
290
3200
No
RAIS 8/12
Dichlorvos
62-73-7
0.12
Breakdown Product of Naled
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
Diethyl Ether
60-29-7
6800
130000
250000
Ethyl Ether
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 1/07
Diethyl Phthalate
84-66-2
1200
15000
600
DEP
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
Dimethoate
60-51-5
0.3
1.6
Cygon, o,o-Dimethyl s-(N-
methyl)-carbamoylmethyl
Dithiophosphate
NA
ECOTOX 10/10
Dimethyl Phthalate
131-11-3
3400
2900
2800
DMP, Benzenedicarboxylic
Acid, Dimethyl Ester
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
Dimethylformamide
66-12-2
3400
130000
DMF, DMFA
No
RAIS 1/07
Di-n-butyl Pthalate
84-74-2
9.5
4.5
DBP
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
99-65-0
3.4
140
No
RAIS 1/07
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
0.048
0.71
2,6-DNT
Yes
RAIS 2/07
Dinoseb
88-85-7
20
3
65
12
No
ECOTOX & IRIS 6/12
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
0.35
80
1,4-Diethylene Dioxide
Yes
IRIS 8/10
Endosulfan, beta
33213-65-9
0.05
0.009
No
EPA AWQC 1980
Endosulfan Sulfate
1031-07-8
0.05
0.009
No
EPA AWQC 1980
Endothall
145-73-3
680
3900
25000
12000
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
EPTC
759-94-4
580
1200
1700
32
s-Ethyl Propylthiocarba mate
No
IRIS 4/07
Ethanol
64-17-5
5000
390
Ethyl Alcohol
NA
ECOTOX 12/10
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
97
25
Phenyl Ethane
NA
ECOTOX 8/10
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.11
0.22
1,2-Benzacenaphthene
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Fluorene
86-73-7
30
50
NA
ECOTOX 9/10
(freshwater), ECOTOX
9/15 saltwater
Fluridone
59756-60-4
90
170
Avast, Sonar
NA
ECOTOX 4/07
Fonofos
944-22-9
0.27
17
NA
ECOTOX 4/07
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
1200
620
Formalin
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
a- Hexachlorocyclohexane
319-84-6
23
66
Alpha-BHC, a-HCH,
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
NA
ECOTOX 1/07

b-Hexachlorocyclohexane
319-85-7
55
Beta-BHC, b-HCH,
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
NA
ECOTOX 7/16
d- Hexachlorocyclohexane
319-86-8
40
0.6
Delta-BHC, d-HCH,
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
NA
ECOTOX 9/15
(freshwater), ECOTOX
1/07 (saltwater)
Hexachlorocyclohexane,
Technical
608-73-1
0.3
0.02
HCH, Hexachlorocyclohexanes
Yes
ECOTOX 9/15
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
77-47-4
0.07
HCCP, Perch lorocyclopentadiene
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Hexahydro-1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-
Triazine
121-82-4
0.31
11
RDX
Yes
RAIS 2/07
Hexamine
100-97-0
2500
2500
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
HMX
2691-41-0
1400
63000
1700
Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetra nitro-
1,3,5,7-tetrazocine
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
Hydrogen Sulfide
6/4/7783
0.21
7.8
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Iodine
755-35-62
35
27
NA
ECOTOX 12/15
Isopropyl Benzene
98-82-8
2700
250
11000
8000
Cumene, Cumol
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 8/10
Isopropyl Ether
108-20-3
20000
330000
2,2'-Oxybispropane
NA
ECOTOX 8/10
Isopropyl Toluene, p
99-87-6
320
2400
4-Cymene
NA
ECOTOX 1/10
Mancozeb
2234562
1000
10
38000
Carbamic Acid, Ethylene-bis
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
Methanol
67-56-1
17000
630000
Methyl Alcohol
No
RAIS 12/08
Methyl Acetate
79-20-9
19000
NA
ECOTOX 3/08
Methyl Bromide
74-83-9
0.04
600
Bromomethane
NA
ECOTOX 9/15
Methyl Chloride
74-87-3
2.6
96
Chloromethane
No
IRIS 2/07
Methyl Methacrylate
80-62-6
9600
NA
ECOTOX 2/09
Methylene Chloride
75-09-2
11000
17000
Dichloromethane
NA
ECOTOX 9/15
1-Methylnaphthalene
90-12-0
0.8
450
2.6
95
Yes
ECOTOX 9/15 & RAIS
4/10
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
90
85
200
30
No
ECOTOX & IRIS 9/15
4-Methyl-2-pentinone
108-10-1
2800
26000
160000
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
Metolochlor
51218-45-2
240
240
200
NA
ECOTOX 10/10
Metribuzin
21087-64-9
840
170
24000
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 2/07
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
160
51000
2000
980
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 6/09
MTBE
1634-04-4
19
34000
1500
50000
Methyl Tertiary -butyl Ether
Yes
ECOTOX 9/15 &
CALEPA 1999
Naphthalene
91-20-3
40
12
950
52
Mothballs
NA
IRIS & ECOTOX 8/10

Nitrite
14797-65-0
1000
Set to federal MCL
No
EPA NPDWR 2012
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
4600
400
Mirbane Oil
NA
ECOTOX 2/07 & 7/16
Nitroglycerin
55-63-0
2
84
67
1,2,3-Propanetriol Trinitrate
Yes
ECOTOX 2/07 & RAIS2/07
Nitrosamines
55-18-5
25000
(N-nitrosodiethyl-amine as
surrogate)
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
N-Nitrosod
55-18-5
25000
(N-nitrosodiethyl-amine asiethyl-amine
surrogate)
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
N-Nitrosodimethyl-amine
62-75-9
17000
170000
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
290
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
2-Nitrotoluene
88-72-2
0.14
1500
1.5
o-Nitrotoluene
Yes
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
3-Nitrotoluene
99-08-1
5300
1600
620
m-Nitrotoluene
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
4-Nitrotoluene
99-99-0
18
2500
1.8
p-Nitrotoluene
Yes
ECOTOX & RAIS 2/07
n-Propyl Benzene
103-65-1
1500
80
2700
4600
No
ECOTOX & RAIS 9/15
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
0.51
Chlorinated Benzene
NA
ECOTOX 1/07
Perchlorate & Salts
14797-73-0
2.5
2.8
No
IRIS 4/07
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
0.7
0.3
NA
ECOTOX 4/10
Propenoic Acid
79-10-7
17000
270000
630000
No
ECOTOX & IRIS 11/09
Pyridine
110-86-1
34
5000
1300
2500
No
ECOTOX 9/15 & IRIS
11/09
Silvex
93-72-1
17
1500
2,4,5-TP, 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenoxypropionoic
Acid
NA
ECOTOX 9/15
Strontium
7440-24-6
14000
40000
No
IRIS 2/07
Sulfide -Hydrogen Sulfide
2148878
0.21
2
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Terbacil
5902-51-2
430
9100
No
IRIS 4/07
1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
1000
600
acetosol, acetylene
tetrachloride
NA
ECOTOX 7/16
Tetrachloroethylene (PERC)
127-18-4
120
65
PERC, PCE, Perch loroethylene
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Tetrahydrofuran
109-99-9
3100
110000
110000
No
ECOTOX 3/08 & IRIS
12/16
Tin
7440-31-5
770
800
No
HEAST 2/14
Thallium
7440-28-0
2
2
Set to federal MCL
No
EPA NPDWR 2012
Toluene
108-88-3
370
NA
ECOTOX 8/07

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
61
27
Chlorinated Benzene
NA
ECOTOX & RAIS 1/07
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacteic
ECOTOX 2/07; EPA
93-76-5
68
5500
2500
1400
2 4 5-T
No
Acid
Gold Book 1986
Ethane Trichloride, Vinyl
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71-55-6
2500
3600
NA
ECOTOX9/15
Trichloride
1, 1,2-Tri c h I oroeth ane
79-00-5
2300
9500
NA
ECOTOX 2/07
Trichlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
9100
67000
Freon 11, Frigen 11, Arcton 11
No
IRIS 2/07
1,1,2-Trich for o-1,2, 2,-
76-13-1
710000
2200000
Freon 113
No
IRIS 1/07
trifluoroethane
1, 2,3-Tri ch I oro pro pa ne
96-18-4
0.01
0.001
1,2,3-TCP
Yes
IRIS 6/12
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
390
220
NA
ECOTOX 8/10
ECOTOX 9/15 & RAIS
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
108-67-8
130
6.30
215
220
Mesitylene
Na
8/10
Trinitrophenylmethylnitrami
479-45-8
140
4300
No
RAIS 2/07
ne
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
118-96-7
1.1
39
TNT
Yes
RAIS 2/07
Xylene Mixture
1330-20-7
6200
670
57000
.370
450
No
IRIS & ECOTOX 6/12
1,3-❑imethyl benzene, Human
m-Xylene
108-38-3
6200
420
54000
180
420
Health and Water Supply use
NA
ECOTOX 6/12
Xylene Mixture as surrogate
1,4-Dimethylbenzene, Human
p-Xylene
106-42-3
6200
420
54000
100
130
Health and Water Supply use
NA
ECOTOX 6/12
Xylene Mixture as surrogate
1,2-❑imethyl benzene, Human
o-Xylene
95-47-6
6200
600
57000
60
400
Health and Water Supply use
NA
ECOTOX 6/12
Xylene Mixture as surrogate
See the Supporting Info tab for information on all footnotes, notes, and abbreviations

ATTACHMENT 8

m
y
CITY OF SANFORD WATER FILTRATION FACILITY
°"+artwt° �11 7441 POPLAR SPRINGS CHURCH ROAD, SANFORD, NC 27330
2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
Water System Number; NC 03-53-010
Este informe contiene informacidn muy importante sabre su agua potable. Traduzcalo o hable con alguien que to
entienda bien
We are pleased to present our annual water quality report covering all testing performed between January 1 and
December 31, 2021. This report is developed to keep you informed about your water quality, what it contains, and how
it compares to standards set by regulatory agencies. To that end, we remain vigilant in meeting the challenges of new
regulations, source water protection, water conservation, and community outreach and education while continuing to
serve the needs of all our water customers. Thank you for allowing us to continue providing you and your family with
high quality drinking water.
If you have any questions about this report or concerning your water, please contact Scott Christiansen at 919-777-1803.
If you are interested in attending a City Council meeting, the Council meets the first and third Tuesdays of each month at
6 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Municipal Building at 225 East Weatherspoon Street in Sanford. Meetings are
open to the public.
What EPA Wants You to Know
Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some
contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More
information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection
Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline [phone]).
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
Immunocompromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone
organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants may be
particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care
providers. The U.S. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and
other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline [phone]).
If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children.
Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing.
The City of Sanford is responsible for providing high -quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials
used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for
lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are
concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water,
testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at
http•//www.epa. gov/safewater/lead.
The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs,
springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally -occurring
minerals and in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or
from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include microbial contaminants, such as viruses
and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and
wildlife; inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally -occurring or result from urban storm

2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
water runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming; pesticides and
herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban storm water runoff, and residential
uses; organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of
industrial processes, petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban storm water runoff, and
septic systems; and radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production
and mining activities.
To ensure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in
water provided by public water systems. FDA regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water, which must
provide the same protection for public health.
When You Turn on Your Tap, Consider the Source
The City of Sanford's customers are fortunate because they enjoy an abundant water supply from a single surface water
source, the Cape Fear River. The Deep, Haw, and Rocky Rivers form the headwaters of the Cape Fear River Basin.
Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) Results
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Public Water Supply (PWS), Source
Water Assessment Program (SWAP) conducted assessments for all drinking water sources across North Carolina. The
purpose of assessments was to determine the susceptibility of each drinking water source (well or surface water intake)
to potential contaminant sources (PCSs). The relative susceptibility rating of the water source for the City of Sanford was
determined by combining the contaminant rating (number and location of PCSs with the assessment area) and the
inherent vulnerability rating (i.e., characteristics or existing conditions of the watershed and its delineated assessment
area). The assessment findings are summarized in the table below;
SOURCE NAME
INHERENT
CONTAMINANT
SUSCEPTIBILITY
SWAP REPORT DATE
VULNERABILITY
RATING
RATING
RATING
Cape Fear River
Higher
Moderate
Higher
September 2020
The complete SWAP report for the City of Sanford may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ncwater.org/?page=600.
Note that because SWAP results and reports are periodically updated by the PWS Section, the results available on this
web site may differ from the results that were available at the time this Annual Water Quality Report was prepared. If
you are unable to access your SWAP report on the web, you may mail a written request for a printed copy to; Source
Water Assessment Program -Report Request, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1634, or email requests to
swap a ncdenr.gov. Please indicate your system name (City of Sanford), system number (03-53-010), and provide your
name, mailing address and phone number. If you have any questions about the SWAP report, please contact the Source
Water Assessment staff by phone at 919-707-9098.
It is important to understand that a susceptibility rating of "higher" does not imply poor water quality, only the systems'
potential to become contaminated by PCSs in the assessment area.
Water Quality Data of Detected Contaminants
We routinely monitor for over 150 water quality contaminants in your drinking water according to Federal and State
laws. The tables below list all the contaminants that we detected in the last round of sampling for each particular
1A

2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
contaminant group. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate the water poses a health risk. Unless
otherwise noted, the data presented in this table is from testing done January 1 through December 31, 2021. The EPA
and the State allow us to monitor for certain contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these
contaminants are not expected to vary significantly from year to year.
Filtered Water Quality Data (Regulated)
TURBIDITY
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
TT
YOUR
TREATMENT TECHNIQUE
LIKELY SOURCE OF
MEASURE)
VIOLATION
WATER
(TT)
CONTAMINATION
Y/N
VIOLATION IF:
Turbidity (NTU)-Highest
No
0.06
Turbidity> 1 NTU
single turbidity measurement
Turbidity (NTU)-Lowest
monthly percentage (%) of
No
100%
Less than 95% of monthly
Soil Runoff
samples meeting turbidity
turbidity measurements are
limits
<0.3 NTU
• Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water. We monitor it because it is a good indicator of the effectiveness of our
filtration system. The turbidity rule requires that 95% or more of the monthly samples must be less than or equal to 0.3
NTU
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
MCL
YOUR
RANGE
MCLG
MCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
MEASURE)
VIOLATION
WATER
LOW -HIGH
CONTAMINATION
Fluoride (ppm)
No
0.55
0.09-0.78
4
4
Erosion of natural
deposits. Water additive
which promotes strong
teeth; discharge from
fertilizer and aluminum
factories
SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
MCL
YOUR
RANGE
MCLG
MCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
MEASURE)
VIOLATION
WATER
LOW -HIGH
CONTAMINATION
Atrazine (ppb)
No
0.16
N/A
3
3
Runoff from herbicide on
row crops
Simazine (ppb)
No
0.08
N/A
4
4
Runoff from herbicide on
row crops
COPPER AND LEAD CONTAMINANTS (Tap water samples were collected for copper and lead analysis from
30 sample sites throughout the community during the 3rd quarter of 2019)
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
YOUR
SITES ABOVE AL/
MCLG
AL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
MEASURE)
WATER
TOTAL SITES
CONTAMINATION
Copper (ppm)
0.104
0/30
1.3
AL=1.3
Corrosion of household
(90th percentile)
plumbing systems;
erosion of natural
deposits
Lead (ppb)
<0.003
0/30
0
AL=15
Corrosion of household
(90th percentile)
plumbing systems;
erosion of natural
deposits
3

2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
Filtered Water Quality Data (Regulated)
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
TT
YOUR
RANGE
MCLG
TT
LIKELY SOURCE
COMPLIANCE
MEASURE)
VIOLATION
WATER
MONTHLY
OF
METHOD
Y/N
REMOVAL
CONTAMINATION
RATIO
LOW -
HIGH
Total Organic Carbon
NO
1.23
0.94-1.48
N/A
TT
Naturally present
STEP
(Removal Ratio)
in the environment
1
(TOC)-TREATED
STEP 1 TOC REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
SOURCE WATER TOC (mg/ L)
SOURCE WATER ALKALINITY
mg/L as CaCO3 (in percentages)
0-60
>60-120
>120
>2.0-4.0
35.0
25.0
15.0
>4.0-8.0
45.0
35.0
25.0
>8.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
DISINFECTION RESIDUALS SUMMARY
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
MCL/MRDL
YOUR
RANGE
MRDLG
MCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
MEASURE)
VIOLATION
WATER
LOW-
CONTAMINATION
Y/N
(Highest
HIGH
RAA)
Chloramines (ppm)
N
3.67
1.89-3.72
4
4
Water additive used to
control microbes
Chlorine (ppm) (March
N
2.54
2.18-2.77
4
4
Water additive used to
only)
control microbes
STAGE 2 DISINFECTION
BYPRODUCT COMPLIANCE - Based upon Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA)
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
MCL/MRDL
YOUR
RANGE
MCLG
MCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
MEASURE)
VIOLATION
WATER
LOW-
CONTAMINATION
Y/N
(Highest
HIGH
LRAA)
TTHM (ppb)
NO
67
N/A
80
{Total Trihalomethanes)
(Location
602-
Lemon S.
Road)
Byproduct of drinking
water disinfection
Location B01
NO
31-113
Location B02
NO
32-107
Location B03
NO
36-108
Location B04
NO
34-107
HAAS (ppb)
NO
37
N/A
60
{Total Halo acetic Acid)
(Location
602-
Lemon S.
Road)
Byproduct of drinking
water disinfection
Location B01
NO
21-70
Location B02
NO
23-66
Location B03
NO
4-33
Location B04
NO
21-58

2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
Raw Water Quality Data (Regulated)
CRYPTOSPORIDIUM
• The City of Sanford monitored for cryptosporidium in both the Cape Fear River and the facilities reservoir during 2018.
Monitoring detected a level of 0.091 oocysts per liter in the Cape Fear River during February. Cryptosporidium is a
microbial pathogen found in surface water throughout the U.S. Although filtration removes Cryptosporidium, the most
commonly -used filtration methods cannot guarantee 100 percent removal. Our monitoring indicates the presence of
these organisms in our source water. Current test methods do not allow us to determine if the organisms are dead or if
they are capable of causing disease. Ingestion of cryptosporidium may cause cryptosporidiosis, an abdominal infection.
Symptoms of infection include nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. Most healthy individuals can overcome the
disease within a few weeks. However, immune -compromised people, infants and small children, and the elderly are at
greater risk of developing life -threatening illness. We encourage immune -compromised individuals to consult their
doctor regarding appropriate precautions to take to avoid infection. Cryptosporidium must be ingested to cause disease,
and it may be spread through means other than drinking water.
Filtered Water Quality Data (Non -Regulated Secondary Substances)
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WATER CHARACTERISTICS
CONTAMINANT (UNIT OF
MEASURE)
YOUR
WATER
SMCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
Alkalinity
32
N/A
Water additive, erosion of natural
deposits
Hardness
31
N/A
Erosion of natural deposits
pH
6.7
6.0-9.0
Measurement of acid or base
neutralizing capacities of water
Sodium
20.43
N/A
Water additive, erosion of natural
deposits
Sulfate
28
250 mg/L
Erosion of natural deposits
Emerging Contaminants
Emerging contaminants, or contaminants of emerging concern, are unregulated synthetic or naturally occurring
chemicals that are not commonly monitored by water utilities. The health significance of these trace contaminants is
under review and the subject of further study and research.
Beginning March 2020, we started monitoring for per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and 1,4 dioxane monthly. The
data presented in the tables is testing done from January 1 through December 31, 2021.
Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of man-made chemicals used for consumer products such as
waterproof and stainproof products, nonstick cookware, food packaging and fire suppression foams.
1,4 dioxane is a clear, flammable liquid used as a solvent or stabilizer in the manufacturing of chemicals, cosmetics,
detergents, and shampoos.

2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
(Non -Regulated)
Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
CONTAMINANT
SAMPLING POINT
YOUR
RANGE
(UNIT OF
WATER
LOW -
MEASURE)
(Average)
HIGH
PFPeA,
EP
7.94
0-13.2
Perfluoropentanoic
Acid (ppt)
RW
8.26
0-15.2
PFBA,
EP
4.55
0-8.98
Perfluorobutanoic
Acid (ppt)
RW
4.79
0-8.4
PFTrDA,
Perfluorotridecanoic
RW
0.06
0-0.38
Acid (ppt)
PFHxA,
EP
7.83
4.76-13.3
Perfluorohexanoic
Acid (ppt)
RW
7.96
2.43-13.5
PFHpa,
EP
3.95
1.78-6.32
Acids
Perfluoroheptanoic
Acid (ppt)
RW
4.06
3.26-6
PFOA,
EP
6.73
4.21-9.18
Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (ppt)
RW
6.93
5.66-9.35
PFNA,
EP
0.95
0.74-1.24
Perfluorononanoic
Acid, (ppt)
RW
0.99
0.61-1.29
PFDA,
EP
0.61
0.288-1.7
Perfluorodecanoic
acid, (ppt)
RW
0.56
0.277-1.24
PFUnA (PFUnDA),
EP
0.07
0-0.4
Perfluooundecanoic
acid, (ppt)
RW
0.08
0-0.41
PFBS,
EP
5.72
0-9.58
Perfluorobutane
RW
5.78
0-9.67
sulfonic acid, (ppt)
PFPeS,
EP
0.59
0-0.94
Perfluoropentane
sulfonic acid, (ppt)
RW
0.64
0-0.93
PFHxS,
EP
2.56
0.81-4.19
Sulfonates
Perfluorohexane
sulfonic acid, (ppt)
RW
2.72
1.64-4.38
PFHpS,
EP
0.49
0-0.58
Perfluoroheptane
sulfonic acid, (ppt)
RW
0.50
0-0.63
PFOS,
EP
9.92
8.36-15.5
Perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid, (ppt)
RW
10
5.73-13.8
6:2, Fluorotelomer
EP
0.22
0-0.52
sulfonic acid, (ppt)
RW
0.15
0 0.51

2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
(Non -Regulated)
Per and Pulyfluor®alkyl
Substances (PFAS)
CONTAMINANT
SAMPLING POINT
YOUR
RANGE
(UNIT OF
WATER
LOW -
MEASURE)
(Average)
HIGH
FBSA, (ppt)
EP
0.52
0-1.05
RW
0.68
0-1.58
HFPO-DA,2,3,3,3-
EP
0.03
0-0.44
Tetrafluoro-2-
Other
(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropoxy)-
RW
0.04
0 0.47
propanoic acid {Gen-
X), (ppt)
Nafion By-product 2,
(ppt)
RW
0.25
0-3.26
(Non -regulated)
1,4®Dioxane
CONTAMINANT
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
SAMPLING POINT
YOUR WATER
(AVERAGE)
RANGE
LOW -HIGH
1,4 Dioxane (ppb)
EP
0.74
0-6.19
1,4 Dionne (ppb)
RW
0.71
0-6.01

2021 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT
Definitions
• Action Level (AL) - The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other
requirements which a water system must follow.
• Distribution System (DS) - Sampling point in the water distribution system.
• Entry Point (EP) - The first sampling point in the water distribution system.
• Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA) - The average of sample analytical results for samples taken at a
particular monitoring location during the previous four calendar quarters under the Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
• Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.
MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.
• Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is
no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
• Maximum Residual Disinfection Level (MRDL) - The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water.
There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.
• Maximum Residual Disinfection Level Goal (MRDLG) -The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which
there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDI.Gs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to
control microbial contaminants.
• Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) - Nephelometric turbidity unit is a measure of the clarity of water.
Turbidity in excess of 5 NTU is just noticeable to the average person.
• Not -applicable (N/A) - Information not applicable/ not required for that particular water system or for that
particular rule.
• Parts per million (ppm) or Milligrams per liter (mg/L) - One part per million corresponds to minute in in two
years or a single penny in $10,000,
• Parts per billion (ppb) or Micrograms per liter (ug/L) - One part per billion corresponds to one minute in 2,000
years, or a single penny in $10,000,000.
• Parts per trillion (ppt) or Nanograms per liter (nanograms/L) — One part per trillion corresponds to one minute
in 2,000,000 years, or a single penny in $10,000,000,000,
• Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) — The lowest concentration value for quantitative data with known precision
and bias for a specific analyte in a specific matrix.
• Raw Water (RW) — Sampling point from the water source.
• Treatment Technique (TT) - A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.

ATTACHMENT 9

'o(ED ST4)z
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
i OFFICE OF WATER
0
�ZTgG PROSEG�`
April 28, 2022
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where
EPA is the Pretreatment Control Authority
FROM: Radhika Fox
Assistant Administrator
TO: Water Division Directors
EPA Regions 1-10
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is an important tool
established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to help address water pollution by regulating point sources
that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. Collectively, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and states issue thousands of permits annually, establishing important monitoring and
pollution limits for publicly owned treatment works, industrial facilities, and stormwater discharges
nationwide. Consistent with the agency's commitments in the October 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap:
EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024 (PFAS Strategic Roadmap), EPA will use the NPDES
program to restrict PFAS discharges to water bodies. For federally -issued permits, EPA will include
requirements to monitor for PFAS, include requirements to use best management practices like product
substitution and good housekeeping practices, and establish practices to address PFAS-containing
firefighting foams in storm water. In addition to reducing PFAS discharges, this program will enable
EPA to obtain comprehensive information on the sources and quantities of PFAS discharges and will
use these data to inform the agency's Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) actions.
This memorandum details how the EPA will address PFAS discharges in EPA -issued NPDES permits
and for Industrial Users (IUs) where EPA is the pretreatment control authority. These recommendations
reflect the agency's commitments in the PFAS Roadmap and supplant previous NPDES and
pretreatment guidance concerning PFAS.' The PFAS Strategic Roadmap directs the Office of Water to
leverage NPDES permits to reduce PFAS discharges to waterways "at the source and obtain more
comprehensive information through monitoring on the sources of PFAS and quantity of PFAS
discharged by these sources. " While the Office of Water works to revise ELGs and develop water
quality criteria to support technology -based and water quality -based effluent limits for PFAS in NPDES
permits, this memorandum describes steps permit writers can implement under existing authorities to
1 Specifically, this memo supplants the Interim Strategy for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Federally Issued
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits dated November 22, 2020.
1

reduce the discharge of PFAS.2
EPA -issued NPDES permits should include the permit conditions described below, as appropriate, for
facilities where PFAS is expected or likely to be present in their discharge.
A. Recommended Permit Conditions for Applicable Industrial Direct Dischargers
1. Applicability: Industry categories known or suspected to discharge PFAS as identified on page 14
of the PFAS Strategic Roadmap include: organic chemicals, plastics & synthetic fibers (OCPSF);
metal finishing; electroplating; electric and electronic components; landfills; pulp, paper &
paperboard; leather tanning & finishing; plastics molding & forming; textile mills; paint formulating,
and airports.
This is not an exhaustive list and additional industries may also discharge PFAS. For example,
Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities may receive wastes from the aforementioned industries
and should be considered for monitoring. There may also be categories of dischargers that do not meet
the applicability criteria of any existing ELG; for instance, remediation sites, chemical manufacturing
not covered by OCPSF, and military bases.
Effluent -monitoring: In the absence of a final 40 CFR § 136 method, use Clean Water Act (CWA)
wastewater draft analytical method 1633. (See 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv)(B)).
Monitoring should include each of the 40 HAS parameters detectable by draft method 1633 and the
monitoring frequency should be at least quarterly to ensure that there are adequate data to assess the
presence and concentration of HAS in discharges. All HAS monitoring data must be reported on
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) (see 122.41(1)(4)(i)). The draft Adsorbable Organic Fluorine
CWA wastewater method 1621 can be used in conjunction with draft method 1633, if appropriate.
2. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for PFAS, including product substitution, reduction, or
elimination for discharges with PFAS as detected by method 1633: Pursuant to 40 CFR
122.44(k)(4), EPA -issued permits to facilities should incorporate the following conditions when the
practices are reasonably necessary to carry out the intent of the CWA:3
a. BMPs conditions based on pollution prevention/source reduction opportunities which may
include:
i. Product elimination or substitution when a reasonable alternative to using HAS is available
in the industrial process.
ii. Accidental discharge minimization by optimizing operations and good housekeeping
practices.
iii. Equipment decontamination or replacement (such as in metal finishing facilities) where
PFAS products have historically been used to prevent discharge of legacy PFAS following
the implementation of product substitution.
b. Example BMP permit special condition language:
i. PFAS pollution prevention/source reduction evaluation: Within 6 months of the effective
date of the permit, the facility shall provide an evaluation of whether the facility uses or has
z This memo applies to EPA -issued permits within states, territories, and tribes for which no water quality criteria has been
adopted for any HAS parameter. If a state or tribe with treatment as a state has established a numeric translation of an
existing narrative water quality standard for PFAS parameters, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vi)(A), the EPA permit
writer should apply that interpretation in EPA permitting decisions.
s For more on BMPs, see NPDES Permit Writer's Manual Section 9.1 and EPA Guidance Manual for Developing Best
Management Practices.
2

historically used any products containing PFAS, whether use of those products or legacy
contamination reasonably can be reduced or eliminated, and a plan to implement those steps.
ii. Reduction or Elimination: Within 12 months of the effective date of the permit, the facility
shall implement the plan in accordance with HAS pollution prevention/source reduction
evaluation.
iii. Annual Report: An annual status report shall be developed which includes a list of potential
PFAS sources, summary of actions taken to reduce or eliminate PFAS, PFAS source
reduction implementation, source monitoring results, and effluent results for the previous
year, and adjustments to the Plan, based on the findings.
iv. Reporting: EPA's electronic reporting tool for DMRs (called "NetDMR") will include the
ability for the permittee to submit the pollution prevention / source reduction evaluation and
the annual report.
3. BMPs to address PFAS-containing firefighting foams for stormwater permits: Pursuant to
122.44(k)(2), where appropriate, EPA -issued permits should include BMPs to address Aqueous Film
Forming Foam (AFFF) used for firefighting in stormwater permits.4
a. Prohibiting the use of AFFFs in stormwater permits other than for actual firefighting.
b. Eliminating PFOS- and PFOA-containing AFFFs.
c. Requiring immediate clean-up in all situations where AFFFs have been used, including
diversions and other measures that prevent discharges via storm sewer systems.
B. Recommended Permit Conditions for Publicly Owned Treatment Works
1. Applicability: EPA -issued permits to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and where EPA is
the pretreatment control authority.
2. Effluent, influent, and biosolids monitoring: In the absence of a final 40 CFR § 136 method, use
CWA wastewater draft analytical method 1633. (See 40 CFR 122.21(e)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR
122.44(i)((1)(iv)(B). Monitoring should include each of the 40 PFAS parameters detectable by draft
method 1633 and the monitoring frequency should be at least quarterly to ensure that there are
adequate data to assess the presence and concentration of PFAS in discharges. All PFAS monitoring
data must be reported on DMRs (see 122.41(1)(4)(i)). The draft Adsorbable Organic Fluorine CWA
wastewater method 1621 can be used in conjunction with draft method 1633, if appropriate.
3. Pretreatment program activities where EPA is the control authority:
a. Update IU Inventory: Permits to POTWs should contain permit requirements to identify and
locate all possible IUs that may be subject to the pretreatment program and identify the character
and volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW by the IUs. This information shall be
provided to the EPA pretreatment control authority (see 40 CFR 122.440) and 40 CFR
403.8(f)(6)) within one year. The ICJ inventory shall be revised, as necessary, to include all IUs
in industry categories expected or suspected of PFAS discharges listed above.5
b. Require BMPs and pollution prevention to address HAS discharges to POTWs.
i. Update IU permits/control mechanisms to require quarterly monitoring.
'Naval Air Station Whidbey Island MS4 permit incorporates these provisions.
5 ELG categories of airport deicing, landfills, textile mills, and plastics molding and forming do not have categorical
pretreatment standards, and therefore small -volume indirect dischargers in those categories would not ordinarily be
considered Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and may not be captured on an existing IU inventory. IUs under the Paint
Formulating category are only subject to Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS), and existing sources may need to
be inventoried.

ii. Where authority exists, develop IU BMPs or local limits. 40 CFR 403.5(c)(4) authorizes
POTWs to develop local limits in the form of BMPs. Such BMPs could be like those for
industrial direct discharges described in A.3 above.
iii. In the absence of local limits, the regional pretreatment coordinators are encouraged to work
with the POTWs to encourage pollution prevention, product substitution, and good
housekeeping practices to make meaningful reductions in HAS releases to POTWs.
C. Recommended Public Notice Expectation for Draft Permits with PFAS-Specific Conditions
1. In addition to the requirements for public notice described in 40 CFR 124.10, EPA Regions are
expected to provide notification to potentially affected downstream public water systems
(PWS) of draft permits with PFAS-specific monitoring, BMPs, or other conditions:
a. Public notice of the draft permit should be provided to potentially affected PWS with intakes
located downstream of the NPDES discharge.
b. EPA permit writers are encouraged to collaborate with their drinking water program
counterparts to determine on a site -specific basis which PWS should be notified.
i. EPA's Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source Waters (DWMAPS) tool may
be helpful as a screening tool to identify potentially affected PWS that should be notified.
c. EPA will provide instructions on how to search for facility -specific discharge monitoring data
in EPA's publicly available search tools.
The Office of Water will re-engage with the national HAS workgroup to identify needs for training and
technical assistance to implement the Administrator's PFAS priorities in NPDES permits and coordinate
permit efforts. EPA plans to issue additional guidance to state permit writers and local pretreatment
authorities to address PFAS. Questions regarding this policy memorandum or other PFAS efforts in
NPDES permits should be directed to the NPDES/PFAS national workgroup lead, Marcus Zobrist, at
[e-mail].
4

ATTACHMENT 10

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 1 of 34
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL
PERMIT FOR MEDIUM WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES (WWTFs) IN
MASSACHUSETTS
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C.
§§ 1251 et seq.; the "CWA"), owners and operators of eligible WWTFs located in Massachusetts
are authorized to discharge to all waters, unless otherwise restricted, in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein.
Certain municipalities are also identified as Co-permittees related to operation and maintenance of
the sewer system in compliance with the Standard Conditions of Part VII and the terms and
conditions of Part II.C, Unauthorized Discharges; Part III.A, Operation and Maintenance of the
Sewer System (which include conditions regarding the operation and maintenance of the collection
systems owned and operated by the municipality); and Part III.B, Alternate Power Source. Each
Co-permittee is listed in Attachment E of this General Permit.
The Permittee and Co-permittee are severally liable for their own activities under Parts ILC, IILA
and III.B and required reporting under Part V with respect to the portions of the collection system
that they own or operate. They are not liable for violations of Parts II.C, III.A and III.B committed
by others relative to the portions of the collection system owned and operated by others. Nor are
they responsible for any reporting under Part V that is required of other Permittees under Parts
II.C, III.A and III.B.
This General Permit shall become effective on the first day of the calendar month immediately
following 30 days after signature.
This General Permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, five (5) years from
the last day of the month preceding the effective date.
Signed this day of
KEN N ETH KK NINETHIgned MORby
AFF
Date: 202.09.2
MORAFF 091500-04'00$
Ken Moraff, Director
Water Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Boston, MA

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
I.
MAG590000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Applicability and Coverage of the WWTF GP ..................................
II. General Permit Requirements............................................................
III. Additional Limitations, Conditions, and Requirements .....................
Page 2 of 34
.....................................2
.....................................4
IV. Obtaining Authorization to Discharge..............................................................................
V. Monitoring, Record -Keeping, and Reporting Requirements ............................................
VI. Administrative Requirements.............................................................................................
The following documents are separate attachments to the Medium WWTF General Permit:
Part VII — Standard Conditions
Attachment A
— Freshwater Acute Toxicity Test Procedure and Protocol, February 2011
Attachment B
— Freshwater Chronic Toxicity Test Procedure and Protocol, March 2013
Attachment C
— Marine Acute Toxicity Test Procedure and Protocol, July 2012
Attachment D
— Marine Chronic Toxicity Test Procedure and Protocol, November 2013
Attachment E —
List of Eligible Facilities
Attachment F —
Reassessment of Technically Based Industrial Discharge Limits
Attachment G
— NPDES Permit Requirement for Industrial Pretreatment Annual Report
Attachment H — HAS Analyte List
Attachment I — Facility -Specific Permit Terms
Attachment J — Pretreatment Program Development Requirements
Applicability and Coverage of the WWTF GP
A. Eligible Discharges
..16
..29
..31
..33
Coverage under the Medium Wastewater Treatment Facility General Permit is available to all
privately and publicly owned treatment works treating domestic sewage in Massachusetts, unless
excluded in Part I.0 below. Wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) includes publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) and other treatment works that treat domestic sewage (collectively
referred to as "wastewater treatment facilities", "facilities" or "WWTFs"). All eligible discharges
in Massachusetts are listed in Attachment E of this General Permit.
B. Geographic Coverage Area
Facilities authorized by the Medium WWTF General Permit (NPDES Permit No. MAG590000)
for discharges in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, may discharge to all waters of the
Commonwealth and Indian Country lands, except as provided in Part I.C. of this General Permit,
unless otherwise restricted by the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 4.00 (or as revised).
C. Limitations on Coverage
The following dischargers are ineligible for coverage under this general permit:

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 3 of 34
1. Any facility that is not defined as a POTW or a treatment works treating domestic sewage,
as defined at 40 CFR § 403.3 and 40 CFR § 122.2, respectively;
2. Any facility with design flow less than 1 MGD or greater than 5 MGD.
3. Any facility that does not provide, at a minimum, secondary treatment to the discharge;
4. Any facility with one or more designated Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) outfalls.
5. Discharges to Special Resource Waters in Massachusetts as defined in the Massachusetts
Surface Water Quality Standards at 314 CMR 4.06(3) and (4), including Public Water
Supplies (314 CMR. 4.06(1)(d)(1), which have been designated by the State as Class A
waters, unless a variance is granted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP), under 314 CMR. 4.04(3)(b);
6. Discharges inconsistent with the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act, in accordance with
301 CMR 27.00;
7. Discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters in Massachusetts as described in the
Massachusetts surface water quality standards at 314 CMR. 4.04(3);
8. Any new or increased discharge which is inconsistent with the Massachusetts
antidegradation policy;
9. Discharges which are inconsistent with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
Program;
10. Discharges which may adversely affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the
National Registry of Historic Places under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
16 U.S.C. Sections 470 et seq., as amended;
11. Discharges which may adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or critical
habitats of such species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); or may adversely affect
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act; and
12. Any "New Source" as defined in 40 CFR § 122.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 4 of 34
II. General Permit Requirements
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date and lasting through the expiration date, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
treated effluent from a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) treating domestic sewage. The discharge shall be limited and monitored
as specified below at the end of all treatment processes, including disinfection or dechlorination, or at an alternative representative
location approved by EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), that provides a representative
sample of the effluent. The receiving water and the influent shall be monitored as specified below.
Table 1. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitation13
Monitoring Requirement','
Parameter
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Measurement
Sample
Monthly
Weekly
Fre uenc
Type3
Rolling Annual
---
---
Continuous
Recorder
Effluent Flow4
Average Limit
MGD
Effluent Flow4
Report MGD
---
Report MGD
Continuous
Recorder
BODs
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Report mg/L
'/Week
Composite
LiMit5 lb/day
Limit5lb/da
CBODs6
25 mg/L
40 mg/L
Report mg/L
1/Week
Composite
LiMit5 lb/day
Limit5lb/da
BOD5 (or CBODS ) Removal
> 85 %
---
---
1/Month
Calculation
TSS
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Report mg/L
'/Week
Composite
LiMit5 lb/day
Limit5lb/da
TSS Removal
> 85 %
---
---
'/Month
Calculation
pH Range?
Limit Range S.U.
5/Week
Grab
Escherichia coli8
126 colonies/
___
409 colonies/100
'/Week
Grab
Class B waters
100 mL
mL
Enterococci8
35 colonies/
130 colonies/100
'/Week
Grab
Class SA or SB
100 mL
mL
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
14 organisms/
28 organisms/100
3/Week
Grab
Class SA, Shellfishing Waters
100 mL
mL

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 5 of 34
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitation13
Monitoring Requirementl,2
Parameter
Average
Average
Maximum Daily
Measurement
Sample
Monthly
Weekly
Fre uenc
Type3
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
88 organisms/
260 organisms/100
3/Week
Grab
Class SB, Shellfishing Waters
100 mL
---
mL
Total Residual Chlorine9
Limit mg/L
---
Limit mg/L
5/Week
Grab
Total Recoverable Metals"'
Limit mg/L
---
Limit mg/L
2/Month
Composite
Total Phosphorus10 Class B waters only
(April 1— October 31)
Limit mg/L
---
---
1/Week
Composite
(November 1 — March 31)
Limit mg/L
---
---
2/Month
Composite
Ammonia Nitrogen10
Limit mg/L
---
Limit mg/L
2/Month
Composite
(specify season)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen"
(April 1 — October 31)
Report mg/L
---
Report mg/L
1/Week
Composite
(November 1 — March 31)
Report mg/L
Report mg/L
1/Month
Composite
Nitrate + Nitrite"
(April 1— October 31)
Report mg/L
---
Report mg/L
1/Week
Composite
(November 1 — March 31)
Report mg/L
Report mg/L
1/Month
Composite
Total Nitrogen' )
Report mg/L
---
Report mg/L
1/Month
Calculation
Report lb/day
Rolling Average Total Nitrogenl)
Limit lb/day
---
---
1/Month
Calculation
PFAS Analytes12
---
---
Report ng/L
1/Quarter
Composite
Other10,13
Limit
---
Limit
Varies
Composite
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing","
Dilution Factor (DF) > 1 and < 20
—
---
---
C-NOEC >100%ODF
and LCso — 100 /o
4/Year
Composite
Dilution Factor > 20 and < 100
---
---
LCso > 100%
4/Year
Composite
Dilution Factor > 100
---
---
LCso >— 50%
2/Year
Composite
Hardness (as CaCO3)
---
---
Report mg/L
Same as WET Measurement
Ammonia Nitrogen
---
---
Report mg/L
Total Aluminum
Report mg/L
Class B waters only---
---
Frequency and Sample Type
Total Cadmium
---
---
Report mg/L

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 6 of 34
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitation13
Monitoring Requirement' 2
Parameter
Average
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Maximum Daily
Measurement Sample
Fre uenc Type3
Total Copper
---
---
Report mg/L
Total Lead
---
---
Report mg/L
Total Nickel
---
---
Report mg/L
Total Zinc
---
---
Report mg/L
Total Organic Carbon
---
---
Report mg/L
Ambient Characteristic"
Reporting Requirements
Monitoring Requirements1,2,3
Monthly
Average Weekly
Maximum Daily
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Hardness - Class B waters only
---
---
Report mg/L
Same as WET
Monitoring
Frequency
Grab
Salinity
Class SA or SB waters only
---
---
Report ppt
Grab
Ammonia Nitrogen
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Total Aluminum
Class B waters only
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Total Cadmium
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Total Copper
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Total Nickel
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Total Lead
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Total Zinc
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Total Organic Carbon
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
Dissolved Organic Carbon17
Class B waters only
---
---
Report mg/L
Grab
pH18
---
---
Report S.U.
Grab
Temperature18
---
---
Report °C
Grab
Total Phosphorus19
Class B waters onlyp
Report m
See Footnote
19
Grab

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 7 of 34
Influent Characteristic
Reporting Requirements
Monitoring Requirements1,2,3
Average
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Maximum Daily
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
BODs (or CBODs)
Report mg/L
---
---
2/Month
Composite
TSS
Report mg/L
---
---
2/Month
Composite
PFAS Analytes12
---
---
Report ng/L
1/Quarter
Composite
Sludge Characteristic
Reporting Requirements
Monitoring Requirements1,2,3
Average
Average
Maximum
Measurement
Sample Type
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Frequency
PFAS Analytes20
---
---
Report ng/g
1/Quarter
Composite21

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 8 of 34
Footnotes to Part II.A. Table 1:
All samples shall be collected in a manner to yield representative data. A routine sampling
program shall be developed in which samples are taken at the same location, same time and
same days of the week each month. Occasional deviations from the routine sampling
program are allowed, but the reason for the deviation shall be documented as an electronic
attachment to the applicable discharge monitoring report. The Permittee shall report the
results to the Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 (EPA) and MassDEP of any
additional testing above that required herein, if testing is in accordance with 40 CFR Part
136.
2. In accordance with 40 CFR § 122.44(i)(1)(iv), the Permittee shall monitor according to
sufficiently sensitive test procedures (i.e., methods) approved under 40 CFR Part 136 or
required under 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N or O, for the analysis of pollutants or
pollutant parameters (except WET). A method is "sufficiently sensitive" when: 1) The
method minimum level (ML) is at or below the level of the effluent limitation established in
the permit for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter; or 2) The method has the lowest
ML of the analytical methods approved under 40 CFR Part 136 or required under 40 CFR
chapter I, subchapter N or O for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter. The term
"minimum level" refers to either the sample concentration equivalent to the lowest
calibration point in a method or a multiple of the method detection limit (MDL), whichever is
higher. Minimum levels may be obtained in several ways: they may be published in a
method; they may be based on the lowest acceptable calibration point used by a laboratory;
or they may be calculated by multiplying the MDL in a method, or the MDL determined by a
laboratory, by a factor.
When a parameter is not detected above the ML, the Permittee must report the data qualifier
signifying less than the ML for that parameter (e.g., < 50 µg/L, if the ML for a parameter is
50 µg/L). For reporting an average based on a mix of values detected and not detected, assign
a value of "0" to all non -detects for that reporting period and report the average of all the
results.
3. A "grab" sample is an individual sample collected in a period of less than 15 minutes.
A "composite" sample is a composite of at least twenty-four (24) grab samples taken during
one consecutive 24-hour period, either collected at equal intervals and combined proportional
to flow or continuously collected proportional to flow.
4. The limit is a rolling annual average, reported in million gallons per day (MGD), which will
be calculated as the arithmetic mean of the monthly average flow for the reporting month and
the monthly average flows of the previous eleven months. Also report monthly average and
maximum daily flow in MGD.
Uxbridge Sewer Commission shall notify EPA the date it expects to exceed or does exceed
its annual rolling average effluent flow limit of 1.25 MGD and the limits referenced in Part
4.1 of the Fact Sheet (from Part I.A. Lb of their 2013 individual permit) will become

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 9 of 34
effective after that time under this General Permit on the date indicated in written notice from
EPA.
The Adams, Belchertown, and Rockland effluent flow limits are based on monthly average,
reported in million gallons per day (MGD).
5. The average monthly and average weekly BOD5 (or CBOD5) and TSS mass limitations are
specific to each discharge, and are calculated using the following equation:
Mass limitation (lb/day) = concentration limit (mg/L) * facility's design flow (MGD) * 8.34
6. The CBOD5 limitations apply in lieu of BOD5 limitations if already included in a facility's
existing permit.
7. The pH shall be within the specified range at all times. The minimum and maximum pH
sample measurement values for the month shall be reported in standard units (S.U.).
Discharges to Class B waters shall be within 6.5 to 8.3 S.U. at all times. Discharges to Class
SA or SB waters shall be within 6.5 to 8.5 S.U. at all times. Continuous monitoring also
fulfills the 5/week monitoring frequency.
The pH shall be within 6.0 to 8.3 S.U. at all times for Concord, Plymouth, Orange,
Marshfield, Uxbridge, and Easthampton (Outfalls 001 and 002). If any of these Permittees
wish to continue this lower pH range for future permit cycles, they must conduct a pH study
and submit the results of said study to MassDEP at massdep.npdes&mass.gov within three
years of the effective date of the authorization to discharge under the General Permit. For
guidance on the study, the Permittee shall contact MassDEP at massdep.npdes&mass.gov.
8. The monthly average limits for bacteria (including E. coli, fecal coliform, and enterococci)
are expressed as a geometric mean. E. coli requirements apply only to discharges to
freshwater (Class B). Enterococci requirements apply only to discharges to marine waters
(Class SA or SB). Fecal Coliform requirements apply only to discharges to marine waters
used for shellfishing (Class SA or SB).
All E. coli limits and monitoring requirements shall apply from April 1 through October 31
unless a different season is specified in their current individual permit. All fecal coliform and
enterococci limits and monitoring requirements shall apply year-round unless a season is
specified in their current individual permit for that parameter.
Bacteria monitoring shall be conducted concurrently with TRC monitoring, if TRC
monitoring is required.
For samples tested using the Most Probable Number (MPN) method, the units may be
expressed as MPN. The units may be expressed as colony forming units (cfu) when using the
Membrane Filtration method.
9. For total residual chlorine (TRC) limitations and other related requirements, see Part II.B.9 of
this permit.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 10 of 34
10. Any new or more stringent limitations that are established in this permit for ammonia
nitrogen (seasonal in warm and/or cold weather), total phosphorus (seasonal during the
growing season only; freshwater only), and/or total metals (year-round) are summarized in
Attachment E for each Permittee.
See Part III.F below for compliance schedules applicable to some of these limits.
11. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrate + nitrite samples shall be collected concurrently. The
results of these analyses shall be used to calculate both the concentration and mass loadings
of total nitrogen, as follows.
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) + Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L)
Total Nitrogen (lbs/day) _ [(average monthly Total Nitrogen (mg/L) * total monthly
effluent flow (Millions of Gallons (MG)) / # of days in the month] * 8.34
For facilities discharging to the Long Island Sound watershed, Blackstone River watershed,
Taunton River watershed, as well as the Plymouth WWTP and Fairhaven WPCF, see
additional limitations and/or requirements in Part III.G of this permit. Facilities discharging
to these receiving waters are identified in Attachment E of this permit.
If applicable, the rolling annual total nitrogen limit is an annual average mass -based
limit (lb/day), which shall be reported as a rolling 12-month average. The value will
be calculated as the arithmetic mean of the monthly average total nitrogen for the
reporting month and the monthly average total nitrogen for the previous 11 months.
Report both the rolling annual average and the monthly average each month.
See Part III.F below for compliance schedules applicable to some of these limits.
12. Report in nanograms per liter (ng/L). This reporting requirement for the listed PFAS
parameters takes effect the first full calendar quarter after the effective date of the
authorization to discharge under the General Permit. Until there is an analytical method
approved in 40 CFR Part 136 for PFAS in wastewater, monitoring shall be conducted using
Draft Method 1633.
Additionally, report in NetDMR the results of all other PFAS analytes required to be tested
as part of the method as shown in Attachment H. Any parameters that are removed from the
method based on multi -lab validation of the method will not be required for reporting and the
Permittee may report "NODI: 9" for any such parameters.
13. Any existing limits in a facility's current NPDES permit that are more stringent than the
limitations presented in this table will be included in that facility's authorization to discharge
under the General Permit.
14. The Permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests (LC50) and, for discharges with a dilution
factor below 20, chronic toxicity tests (C-NOEC) in accordance with test procedures and
protocols specified in Attachments A and B (for freshwater discharges) or Attachments C

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 11 of 34
and D (for marine discharges) of this permit. LC50 and C-NOEC are defined in Part VII.E.
of this permit. The Permittee shall test the daphnid (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and the fathead
minnow (Pimephales promelas) if discharging to freshwater (Class B) or the mysid shrimp
(Mysidopsia Bahia) and the inland silverside (Menidia beryllina) if discharging to marine
waters (Class SA or SB). However, for Permittees that are currently authorized for a
reduction in WET requirements (e.g., frequency or test species) those reductions will be
carried forward in the authorization to discharge under this General Permit. Additionally,
previously approved species reductions and/or substitutions are also carried forward. For
facilities required to test four times per year, toxicity test samples shall be collected during
the same weeks each time of calendar quarters ending March 31st, June 30th, September
30th, and December 31 st. For the facilities required to test twice per year toxicity test
samples shall be collected during the same weeks each time of calendar quarters ending June
30th and September 30th. The complete report for each toxicity test shall be submitted as an
attachment to the DMR submittal which includes the results for that toxicity test.
15. For Part I.A. L, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing, the Permittee shall conduct the analyses
specified in Attachments A and B (for freshwater discharges) or Attachments C and D (for
marine discharges), Part VI. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS for the effluent sample. If toxicity
test(s) using the receiving water as diluent show the receiving water to be toxic or unreliable,
the Permittee shall follow procedures outlined in Attachments A and B (for freshwater
discharges) or Attachments C and D (for marine discharges), Section IV., DILUTION
WATER. Minimum levels and test methods are specified in Attachment A and B (for
freshwater discharges) or Attachments C and D (for marine discharges), Part VI.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.
16. For Part LA.1., Ambient Characteristic, the Permittee shall conduct the analyses specified in
Attachments A and B (for freshwater discharges) or Attachments C and D (for marine
discharges), Part VI. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS for the receiving water sample collected as
part of the WET testing requirements. Such samples shall be taken from the receiving water
at a point immediately upstream (for freshwater discharges) or outside (for marine
discharges) of the permitted discharge's zone of influence at a reasonably accessible location,
as specified in Attachments A and B (for freshwater discharges) or Attachments C and D
(for marine discharges). Minimum levels and test methods are specified in Attachment A
and B (for freshwater discharges) or Attachments C and D (for marine discharges), Part VI.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.
17. Monitoring and reporting for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) are not requirements of the
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests but are additional requirements. The Permittee may
analyze the WET samples for DOC or may collect separate samples for DOC concurrently
with WET sampling.
18. A pH and temperature measurement shall be taken of each receiving water sample at the time
of collection and the results reported on the appropriate DMR. These pH and temperature
measurements are independent from any pH and temperature measurements required by the
WET testing protocols.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 12 of 34
19. All Permittees listed in Attachment E with "Yes" in the "Ambient TP Monitoring" column
shall develop and implement a sampling and analysis plan for biannually collecting monthly
samples at a location upstream of the facility. Samples shall be collected once per month,
from May through September, every even calendar year. The Permittee may enter "NODI"
code 9 (i.e., conditional monitoring) in the relevant discharge monitoring report during years
when monitoring is not required. Sampling shall be conducted on any calendar day that is
preceded by at least 72 hours without rainfall, following the last rainfall of 0.1 inches of
rainfall or greater. A sampling plan shall be submitted to EPA and the State at least three
months prior to the first planned sampling date as part of a Quality Assurance Project Plan
for review and State approval.
20. Report in nanograms per gram (ng/g). This reporting requirement for the listed HAS
parameters takes effect the first full calendar quarter after the effective date of the
authorization to discharge under the General Permit. Until there is an analytical method
approved in 40 CFR Part 136 for PFAS in sludge, monitoring shall be conducted using Draft
Method 1633.
Additionally, report in NetDMR the results of all other PFAS analytes required to be tested
as part of the method, as shown in Attachment H. Any parameters that are removed from the
method based on multi -lab validation of the method will not be required for reporting and the
Permittee may report "NODI: 9" for any such parameters.
21. Sludge sampling shall be as representative as possible based on guidance found at
hM2s://www.epa.gov/sites/Troduction/files/2018-1 I/documents/potw-sludge-sampling=
guidance-document.pd£

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 13 of 34
B. Other Requirements
1. The discharge shall not cause a violation of the water quality standards of the receiving water.
2. The discharge shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that, in the
receiving water, settle to form objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum or other matter to
form nuisances; produce objectionable odor, color, taste or turbidity; or produce undesirable or
nuisance species of aquatic life.
3. The discharge shall be free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that adversely
affect the physical or chemical nature of the bottom, interfere with the propagation of fish or
shellfish, or adversely affect populations of non -mobile or sessile benthic organisms.
4. The discharge shall not result in pollutants in concentrations or combinations in the receiving
water that are toxic to humans, aquatic life or wildlife.
5. The discharge shall be free from floating, suspended and settleable solids in concentrations or
combinations that would impair any use assigned to the receiving water.
6. If receiving water is Class SA, the discharge shall be free from oil and grease and
petrochemicals. If the receiving water is Class B or SB, the discharge shall be free from oil,
grease and petrochemicals that produce a visible film on the surface of the water, impart an
oily taste to the water or an oily or other undesirable taste to the edible portions of aquatic life,
coat the banks or bottom of the water course, or are deleterious or become toxic to aquatic life.
7. The Permittee must provide adequate notice to EPA -Region 1 and MassDEP of the following:
a. Any new introduction of pollutants into the facility from an indirect discharger which
would be subject to Part 301 or Part 306 of the Clean Water Act if it were directly
discharging those pollutants or in a primary industry category (see 40 CFR Part 122
Appendix A as amended) discharging process water; and
b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that
facility by a source introducing pollutants into the facility at the time of issuance of the
permit.
c. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on:
(1) The quantity and quality of effluent introduced into the facility; and
(2) Any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be
discharged from the facility.
8. Pollutants introduced into the facility by a non -domestic source (user) shall not pass through
the POTW or facility or interfere with the operation or performance of the works.
9. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) limitations and related requirements are specified below:

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 14 of 34
a. All existing TRC limits will be carried forward in the authorization to discharge unless a
more stringent limit is required. See Attachment E for a summary of any more stringent
TRC limits that apply to an eligible facility. For any permit limits below 20 µg/L, the
compliance level for TRC is 20 µg/L.
b. The Permittee shall minimize the use of chlorine while maintaining adequate bacterial
control. TRC monitoring and limitations only apply to discharges which have been
previously chlorinated or which contain residual chlorine. If bacteria limits do not apply
during a particular monitoring period and, therefore, chlorine is not utilized, TRC
monitoring is not necessary and the Permittee may enter "NODI" code 9 (i.e., conditional
monitoring) in the relevant discharge monitoring report.
Additionally, Permittees authorized to conduct disinfection using an alternative to chlorine
as the disinfectant are only subject to the TRC limitations and monitoring requirements
whenever chlorine is added to the treatment process for disinfection or for other purpose.
For the months in which chlorine is not added to the treatment process and the Permittee
may enter "NODI" code 9 (i.e., conditional monitoring) in the relevant discharge
monitoring report.
d. Chlorination and dechlorination systems shall include an alarm system for indicating
system interruptions or malfunctions. Any interruption or malfunction of the chlorine
dosing system that may have resulted in levels of chlorine that were inadequate for
achieving effective disinfection, or interruptions or malfunctions of the dechlorination
system that may have resulted in excessive levels of chlorine in the final effluent shall be
reported with the monthly DMRs. The report shall include the date and time of the
interruption or malfunction, the nature of the problem, and the estimated amount of time
that the reduced levels of chlorine or dechlorination chemicals occurred.
e. Facilities shall disinfect year-round unless authorized to disinfect seasonally. Permittees
seeking General Permit coverage for discharges into Class B waters may request
authorization to conduct disinfection of the discharge on a seasonal basis. If approved,
upon receipt of written authorization from EPA and MassDEP to conduct seasonal
disinfection, TRC limitations, monitoring, and reporting requirements apply only during
the specified disinfection period and whenever chlorine is added to the treatment process
outside of the specified disinfection period.
C. Unauthorized Discharges
This permit authorizes discharges only from the outfall(s) listed in the authorization to
discharge from EPA in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Discharges of
wastewater from any other point sources, including sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), are not
authorized by this permit. The Permittee must provide verbal notification to EPA within 24
hours of becoming aware of any unauthorized discharge and a report within 5 days, in
accordance with Part VILD. Le (24-hour reporting). Providing that it contains the information
required in Part VILD. Le, submission of the MassDEP SSO Reporting Form (described in Part
II.C.3 below) may satisfy the requirement for a written report. See Part V below for reporting
requirements.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 15 of 34
2. The Permittee must provide notification to the public within 24 hours of becoming aware of
any unauthorized discharge, except SSOs that do not impact a surface water or the public, on a
publicly available website, and it shall remain on the website for a minimum of 12
months. Such notification shall include the location and description of the discharge; estimated
volume; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and, if the
noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue.
3. Notification of SSOs to MassDEP shall be made on its SSO Reporting Form (which includes
MassDEP Regional Office telephone numbers). The reporting form and instruction for its
completion may be found on-line at https://www.mass.gov/how-to/sanitary-sewer-
overflowbypassbackup-notification.
D. Notification Requirements
The Permittee shall notify all downstream community water systems (if any) of any emergency
condition, plant upset, bypass, or other system failure which has the potential to impact the quality
of the water to be withdrawn by that community for drinking water purposes. This notification
should be made as soon as possible but within four (4) hours, and in the anticipation of such an
event, if feasible, without taking away from any response time necessary to alleviate the situation.
The Permittee shall follow up with written notification within five (5) days. This notification shall
include the reason for the emergency, any sampling information, any visual data recorded, a
description of how the situation was handled, and when it would be considered to no longer be an
emergency.
E. Additional Requirements for Facilities Discharging to Marine Waters
The requirements below apply to facilities that discharge to marine waters.
1. For facilities with effluent diffusers', the Permittee shall operate the effluent diffuser according
to the best management practices below:
a. The effluent diffuser shall be maintained to ensure proper operation. Proper operation
means that the outfall pipe be intact, operating as designed, and have unobstructed flow.
Maintenance may include dredging in the vicinity of the diffuser, removal of solids/debris
in the diffuser header pipe, and repair/replacement.
b. To determine if maintenance will be required, the Permittee shall inspect and videotape the
operation of the diffuser either remotely or using a qualified diver or marine contractor.
The inspections and videotaping shall be performed every five years with the first
inspection occurring within twelve (12) months of the effective date of the authorization to
discharge under the General Permit. EPA and MassDEP shall be contacted at least seven
1 These facilities include Ipswich, Hull, Newburyport, Amesbury, and Marshfield.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 16 of 34
days prior to a dive inspection.
Any necessary maintenance dredging must be performed only during the marine
construction season authorized by the Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries and
only after receiving all necessary permits from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other
appropriate agencies.
d. Copies of reports summarizing the results of each diffuser inspection shall be submitted to
EPA and MassDEP within 60 days of each inspection. Each inspection report shall include
a detailed analysis of any deficiencies in the operation of the diffuser, and if necessary, a
proposed schedule for maintenance. All supporting data shall be submitted along with the
report.
2. The Permittee shall verbally notify the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries within 4
hours of any emergency condition, plant upset, bypass, SSO discharges or other system failure
which has the potential to violate bacteria permit limits. Within 24 hours a notification of a
permit excursion or plant failure shall be sent to the following address:
Division of Marine Fisheries
Shellfish Management Program
30 Emerson Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
[phone]
3. Pursuant to 40 CFR § 125.123(d)(4), this permit shall be modified or revoked at any time if, on
the basis of any new data, the director determines that continued discharges may cause
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.
4. In the fifth year of this permit term, the following eligible dischargers to marine waters must
conduct a new model or dye study to determine a defensible dilution factor for their discharge -
Plymouth, Hull, Newburyport, Fairhaven, Dartmouth and Marshfield. Each Permittee should
coordinate with EPA and MassDEP in advance of conducting the model or dye study to
confirm an appropriate methodology for this model or dye study. The results of this model or
dye study must be submitted to EPA and MassDEP by the expiration date of the General
Permit.
III. Additional Limitations, Conditions, and Requirements
A. Operation and Maintenance of the Sewer System
Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the sewer system shall be in compliance with the Standard
Conditions of Part VII and the following terms and conditions. The Permittee and Co-permittee(s),
if any, shall complete the following activities for the collection system which it owns:
1. Maintenance Staff

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 17 of 34
The Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, shall provide an adequate staff to carry out the
operation, maintenance, repair, and testing functions required to ensure compliance with the
terms and conditions of this permit. Provisions to meet this requirement shall be described in
the Collection System O&M Plan required pursuant to Section III.A.5. below.
2. Preventive Maintenance Program
The Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, shall maintain an ongoing preventive maintenance
program to prevent overflows and bypasses caused by malfunctions or failures of the sewer
system infrastructure. The program shall include an inspection program designed to identify all
potential and actual unauthorized discharges. Plans and programs to meet this requirement
shall be described in the Collection System O&M Plan required pursuant to Section III.A.5.
below.
3. Infiltration/Inflow
The Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, shall control infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the
sewer system as necessary to prevent high flow related unauthorized discharges from their
collection systems and high flow related violations of the wastewater treatment plant's effluent
limitations. Plans and programs to control VI shall be described in the Collection System O&M
Plan required pursuant to Section III.A.5. below.
4. Collection System Mapping
If a Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, have not already prepared and submitted a collection
system map, they shall prepare a map of the sewer collection system they own by the deadline
listed in Attachment E of this permit. If a Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, have already
prepared and submitted a collection system map (as indicated with "Done" in Attachment E),
they shall continue to maintain a map of the sewer collection system they own. The map shall
be on a street map of the community, with sufficient detail and at a scale to allow easy
interpretation. The collection system information shown on the map shall be based on current
conditions and shall be kept up-to-date and available for review by federal, state, or local
agencies. Such map(s) shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. All sanitary sewer lines and related manholes;
b. All combined sewer lines, related manholes, and catch basins;
c. All combined sewer regulators and any known or suspected connections between
the sanitary sewer and storm drain systems (e.g. combination manholes);
d. All outfalls, including the treatment plant outfall(s), CSOs, and any known or suspected
SSOs, including stormwater outfalls that are connected to combination manholes;
e. All pump stations and force mains;
f. The wastewater treatment facility(ies);

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 18 of 34
g. All surface waters (labeled);
h. Other major appurtenances such as inverted siphons and air release valves;
i. A numbering system which uniquely identifies manholes, catch basins, overflow points,
regulators and outfalls;
j. The scale and a north arrow; and
k. The pipe diameter, date of installation, type of material, distance between manholes, and
the direction of flow.
5. Collection System O&M Plan
If a Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, have not already prepared and submitted a
Collection System O&M Plan, they shall develop and implement a Collection System O&M
Plan in accordance with Parts (a) and (b) below.
a. By the due date listed in Attachment E of this permit, the Permittee and Co-
permittee(s), if any, shall submit to EPA and the State
(1) A description of the collection system management goals, staffing, information
management, and legal authorities;
(2) A description of the collection system and the overall condition of the collection
system including a list of all pump stations and a description of recent studies and
construction activities; and
(3) A schedule for the development and implementation of the full Collection System
O&M Plan including the elements in paragraphs b. 1. through b.8. below.
b. The full Collection System O&M Plan shall be completed, implemented and submitted
to EPA and the State by the due date listed in Attachment E of this permit. The Plan
shall include:
(1) The required submittal from paragraph 5.a. above, updated to reflect current
information;
(2) A preventive maintenance and monitoring program for the collection system;
(3) Description of sufficient staffing necessary to properly operate and maintain the
sanitary sewer collection system and how the operation and maintenance program is
staffed;
(4) Description of funding, the source(s) of funding and provisions for funding
sufficient for implementing the plan;
(5) Identification of known and suspected overflows and back-ups, including manholes.
A description of the cause of the identified overflows and back-ups, corrective
actions taken, and a plan for addressing the overflows and back-ups consistent with
the requirements of this permit;

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 19 of 34
(6) A description of the Permittee's programs for preventing 1/I related effluent
violations and all unauthorized discharges of wastewater, including overflows and
by-passes and the ongoing program to identify and remove sources of 1/I. The
program shall include an inflow identification and control program that focuses on
the disconnection and redirection of illegal sump pumps and roof down spouts;
(7) An educational public outreach program for all aspects of VI control, particularly
private inflow; and
(8) An Overflow Emergency Response Plan to protect public health from overflows and
unanticipated bypasses or upsets that exceed any effluent limitation in the permit.
If a Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, have already prepared and submitted a Collection
System O&M Plan (as indicated with "Done" in Attachment E), they shall update and
implement the Collection System O&M Plan they have previously submitted to EPA and the
State in accordance with Part (c) below. The plan shall be available for review by federal, state,
and local agencies upon request.
c. The Plan shall include:
(1) A description of the collection system management goals, staffing, information
management, and legal authorities;
(2) A description of the collection system and the overall condition of the collection
system including a list of all pump stations and a description of recent studies and
construction activities;
(3) A preventive maintenance and monitoring program for the collection system;
(4) Description of sufficient staffing necessary to properly operate and maintain the
sanitary sewer collection system and how the operation and maintenance program is
staffed;
(5) Description of funding, the source(s) of funding and provisions for funding
sufficient for implementing the plan;
(6) Identification of known and suspected overflows and back-ups, including manholes.
A description of the cause of the identified overflows and back-ups, corrective
actions taken, and a plan for addressing the overflows and back-ups consistent with
the requirements of this permit;
(7) A description of the Permittee's programs for preventing 1/I related effluent
violations and all unauthorized discharges of wastewater, including overflows and
by-passes and the ongoing program to identify and remove sources of 1/I. The
program shall include an inflow identification and control program that focuses on
the disconnection and redirection of illegal sump pumps and roof down spouts;
(8) An educational public outreach program for all aspects of I/I control, particularly
private inflow; and
(9) An Overflow Emergency Response Plan to protect public health from overflows and
unanticipated bypasses or upsets that exceed any effluent limitation in the permit.
6. Annual Reporting Requirement
The Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, shall submit a summary report of activities related
to the implementation of its Collection System O&M Plan during the previous calendar year.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 20 of 34
The report shall be submitted to EPA and the State annually by March 31 st. The first annual
report is due the first March 3 1 " following submittal of the collection system O&M Plan
required by Section III.A.5.b. above. The summary report shall, at a minimum, include:
a. A description of the staffing levels maintained during the year;
b. A map and a description of inspection and maintenance activities conducted and corrective
actions taken during the previous year;
c. Expenditures for any collection system maintenance activities and corrective actions taken
during the previous year;
d. A map with areas identified for investigation/action in the coming year;
e. A summary of unauthorized discharges during the past year and their causes and a report of
any corrective actions taken as a result of the unauthorized discharges reported pursuant to
the Unauthorized Discharges section of this permit; and
f. If the average annual flow in the previous calendar year exceeded 80 percent of the
facility's design flow, or there have been capacity -related overflows, the report shall
include items in (1) and (2) below.
(1) Plans for further potential flow increases describing how the Permittee will maintain
compliance with the flow limit and all other effluent limitations and conditions; and
(2) A calculation of the maximum daily, weekly, and monthly infiltration and the
maximum daily, weekly, and monthly inflow for the reporting year.
B. Alternate Power Source
In order to maintain compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit, the Permittee and
Co-permittee(s), if any, shall provide an alternative power source(s) sufficient to operate the
portion of the publicly owned treatment works it owns and operates, as defined in Part VII.E.1 of
this permit.
C. Industrial Users
The following requirements only apply to dischargers that are not required to conduct a
pretreatment program, as identified in Attachment E of this General Permit.
1. The Permittee shall submit to EPA and the State the name of any Industrial User (IU) subject
to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR § 403.6 and 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter
N (Parts 405-415, 417-430, 432, 447, 449-451, 454, 455, 457-461, 463-469, and 471 as
amended) who commences discharge to the facility after the effective date of the authorization
to discharge under the General Permit.
This reporting requirement also applies to any other IU who is classified as a Significant
Industrial User which discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 21 of 34
wastewater into the facility (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater); contributes a process wastewater which makes up five (5) percent or more of the
average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the facility; or is designated as such by
the Control Authority as defined in 40 CFR § 403.3(f) on the basis that the industrial user has a
reasonable potential to adversely affect the wastewater treatment facility's operation, or for
violating any pretreatment standard or requirement (in accordance with 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(6)).
2. In the event that the Permittee receives originals of reports (baseline monitoring reports, 90-
day compliance reports, periodic reports on continued compliance, etc.) from industrial users
subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR § 403.6 and 40 CFR chapter I,
subchapter N (Parts 405-415, 417-430, 432-447, 449-451, 454, 455, 457-461, 463-469, and
471 as amended), or from a Significant Industrial User, the Permittee shall forward the
originals of these reports within ninety (90) days of their receipt to EPA, and copy MassDEP in
accordance with Part V.2 below.
3. Beginning the first full calendar year after the effective date of the authorization to discharge
under the General Permit, the Permittee shall commence annual sampling of the following
types of industrial discharges into the POTW:
• Commercial Car Washes
Platers/Metal Finishers
• Paper and Packaging Manufacturers
Tanneries and Leather/Fabric/Carpet Treaters
• Manufacturers of Parts with Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or teflon type coatings (i.e.
bearings)
• Landfill Leachate
• Centralized Waste Treaters
• Known or Suspected PFAS Contaminated Sites
Fire Fighting Training Facilities
• Airports
Any Other Known or Expected Sources of PFAS
Until there is an analytical method approved in 40 CFR Part 136 for PFAS, monitoring shall be
conducted using Draft Method 1633. Sampling shall be for the PFAS analytes required to be
tested in Method 1633, as shown in Attachment H.
The industrial discharges sampled and the sampling results (including the full lab report) shall
be summarized and submitted to EPA and copy the State as an electronic attachment to the
March discharge monitoring report due April 151h of the calendar year following the testing.
D. Industrial Pretreatment Programs
The following requirements only apply to dischargers that are required to conduct a pretreatment
program, as identified in Attachment E of this General Permit.
1. The Permittee shall develop and enforce specific effluent limits (local limits) for Industrial
User(s), and all other users, as appropriate, which together with appropriate changes in the

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 22 of 34
POTW Treatment Plant's Facilities or operation, are necessary to ensure continued compliance
with the POTW's NPDES permit or sludge use or disposal practices. Specific local limits shall
not be developed and enforced without individual notice to persons or groups who have
requested such notice and an opportunity to respond. Within 90 days of the effective date of
the authorization to discharge under the General Permit, the Permittee shall prepare and submit
a written technical evaluation to EPA analyzing the need to revise local limits. As part of this
evaluation, the Permittee shall assess how the POTW performs with respect to influent and
effluent of pollutants, water quality concerns, sludge quality, sludge processing
concerns/inhibition, biomonitoring results, activated sludge inhibition, worker health and
safety and collection system concerns. In preparing this evaluation, the Permittee shall
complete and submit the attached form (see Attachment F — Reassessment of Technically
Based Industrial Discharge Limits) with the technical evaluation to assist in determining
whether existing local limits need to be revised. Justifications and conclusions should be based
on actual plant data if available and should be included in the report. Should the evaluation
reveal the need to revise local limits, the Permittee shall complete the revisions within 120
days of notification by EPA and submit the revisions to EPA for approval. The Permittee shall
carry out the local limits revisions in accordance with EPA's Local Limit Development
Guidance (July 2004).
2. The Permittee shall implement the Industrial Pretreatment Program in accordance with the
legal authorities, policies, procedures, and financial provisions described in the Permittee's
approved Pretreatment Program, and the General Pretreatment Regulations, 40 CFR Part 403.
At a minimum, the Permittee must perform the following duties to properly implement the
Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP):
a. Carry out inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures which will determine
independent of information supplied by the industrial user, whether the industrial
user is in compliance with the Pretreatment Standards. At a minimum, all
significant industrial users shall be sampled and inspected at the frequency
established in the approved IPP but in no case less than once per year and maintain
adequate records.
b. Issue or renew all necessary industrial user control mechanisms within 90 days of
their expiration date or within 180 days after the industry has been determined to be
a significant industrial user.
c. Obtain appropriate remedies for noncompliance by any industrial user with any
pretreatment standard and/or requirement.
d. Maintain an adequate revenue structure for continued implementation of the
Pretreatment Program.
3. The Permittee shall provide EPA and MassDEP with an annual report describing the
Permittee's pretreatment program activities for the twelve (12) month period ending 60 days
prior to the due date in accordance with 40 CFR § 403.12(i). The annual report shall be
consistent with the format described in Attachment G (NPDES Permit Requirement for

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 23 of 34
Industrial Pretreatment Annual Report) of this permit and shall be submitted by March 1 of
each year.2
4. The Permittee must obtain approval from EPA prior to making any significant changes to the
industrial pretreatment program in accordance with 40 CFR § 403.18(c).
5. The Permittee must assure that applicable National Categorical Pretreatment Standards are met
by all categorical industrial users of the POTW. These standards are published in the Federal
Regulations at 40 CFR § 405 et seq.
6. The Permittee must modify its pretreatment program, if necessary, to conform to all changes in
the Federal Regulations that pertain to the implementation and enforcement of the industrial
pretreatment program. Within 180 days of the effective date of the authorization to discharge
under the General Permit the Permittee must provide EPA in writing, proposed changes, if
applicable, to the Permittee's pretreatment program deemed necessary to assure conformity
with current Federal Regulations. At a minimum, the Permittee must address in its written
submission the following areas: (1) Enforcement response plan; (2) revised sewer use
ordinances; and (3) slug control evaluations. The Permittee will implement these proposed
changes pending EPA Region 1's approval under 40 CFR § 403.18. This submission is
separate and distinct from any local limits analysis submission described in Part III.D.1.
7. Beginning the first full calendar year after the effective date of the authorization to discharge
under the General Permit, the Permittee shall commence annual sampling of the following
types of industrial discharges into the POTW:
• Commercial Car Washes
• Platers/Metal Finishers
• Paper and Packaging Manufacturers
• Tanneries and Leather/Fabric/Carpet Treaters
• Manufacturers of Parts with Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or teflon type coatings (i.e.
bearings)
• Landfill Leachate
• Centralized Waste Treaters
• Known or Suspected HAS Contaminated Sites
• Fire Fighting Training Facilities
• Airports
• Any Other Known or Expected Sources of PFAS
2 The due date for MWRA Clinton is October 31" of each year.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 24 of 34
Until there is an analytical method approved in 40 CFR Part 136 for PFAS, monitoring shall be
conducted using Draft Method 1633. Sampling shall be for the PFAS analytes required to be tested
in Method 1633, as shown in Attachment H.
The industrial discharges sampled and the sampling results (including the full lab report) shall be
summarized and included in the annual report (see Part III.D.3).
E. Sludge Conditions
1. The Permittee shall comply with all existing federal and state laws and regulations that apply
to sewage sludge use and disposal practices, including EPA regulations promulgated at 40 CFR
Part 503, which prescribe "Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge" pursuant to §
405(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1345(d).
2. If both state and federal requirements apply to the Permittee's sludge use and/or disposal
practices, the Permittee shall comply with the more stringent of the applicable requirements.
3. The requirements and technical standards of 40 CFR Part 503 apply to the following sludge
use or disposal practices:
a. Land application - the use of sewage sludge to condition or fertilize the soil
b. Surface disposal - the placement of sewage sludge in a sludge only landfill
c. Sewage sludge incineration in a sludge only incinerator
4. The requirements of 40 CFR Part 503 do not apply to facilities which dispose of sludge in a
municipal solid waste landfill. 40 CFR § 503.4. These requirements also do not apply to
facilities which do not use or dispose of sewage sludge during the life of the permit but rather
treat the sludge (e.g., lagoons, reed beds), or are otherwise excluded under 40 CFR § 503.6.
5. The 40 CFR Part 503 requirements include the following elements:
• General requirements
• Pollutant limitations
• Operational Standards (pathogen reduction requirements and vector
attraction reduction requirements)
• Management practices
• Record keeping
• Monitoring
• Reporting
Which of the 40 CFR Part 503 requirements apply to the Permittee will depend upon the use or
disposal practice followed and upon the quality of material produced by a facility. The EPA
Region 1 Guidance document, "EPA Region 1 - NPDES Permit Sludge Compliance Guidance"

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 25 of 34
(November 4, 1999), may be used by the Permittee to assist it in determining the applicable
requirements. s
6. The sludge shall be monitored for pollutant concentrations (all Part 503 methods) and pathogen
reduction and vector attraction reduction (land application and surface disposal) at the
following frequency. This frequency is based upon the volume of sewage sludge generated at
the facility in dry metric tons per year, as follows:
less than 290 l/ year
290 to less than 1,500 1 /quarter
1,500 to less than 15,000 6 /year
15,000 + 1 /month
Sampling of the sewage sludge shall use the procedures detailed in 40 CFR § 503.8.
7. Under 40 CFR § 503.9(r), the Permittee is a "person who prepares sewage sludge" because it
"is ... the person who generates sewage sludge during the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works ...." If the Permittee contracts with another "person who prepares sewage
sludge" under 40 CFR § 503.9(r) — i.e., with "a person who derives a material from sewage
sludge" — for use or disposal of the sludge, then compliance with Part 503 requirements is the
responsibility of the contractor engaged for that purpose. If the Permittee does not engage a
"person who prepares sewage sludge," as defined in 40 CFR § 503.9(r), for use or disposal,
then the Permittee remains responsible to ensure that the applicable requirements in Part 503
are met. 40 CFR § 503.7. If the ultimate use or disposal method is land application, the
Permittee is responsible for providing the person receiving the sludge with notice and
necessary information to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR § 503 Subpart B.
8. The Permittee shall submit an annual report containing the information specified in the 40 CFR
Part 503 requirements (§ 503.18 (land application), § 503.28 (surface disposal), or § 503.48
(incineration)) by February 19 (see also "EPA Region 1 - NPDES Permit Sludge Compliance
Guidance"). Reports shall be submitted electronically using EPA's Electronic Reporting tool
("NeT") (see "Reporting Requirements" section below).
F. Schedules of Compliance
EPA will indicate any applicable compliance schedule(s) on the Permittee's authorization to
discharge based on the following:
1. The Permittee will have a schedule of compliance of 24 months for any newly established or
more stringent water quality -based effluent limits which EPA has determined the Permittee is
s This guidance document is available upon request from EPA Region 1 and may also be found at:
http://www.0a. og v/re ig onl/npdes/permits/generic/sludgeauidance.j2

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 26 of 34
not expected to be in compliance with upon the effective date of the authorization to discharge
under the General Permit (other than aluminum limits which are covered in subpart 3 below).
The applicable Permittees and limits are listed below (see also Attachment E for numeric
values of these limits). During the compliance schedule, the Permittee shall either report
monitoring results (for newly established limits) or comply with an interim limit equivalent to
the existing limit in their previous permit (for limits becoming more stringent).
a. Adams WWTP, Total Phosphorus
b. Spencer WWTP, Total Nitrogen
c. Ware WWTP, Total Nitrogen
d. Greenfield WPCP, Total Phosphorus
e. Greenfield WPCP, Total Nitrogen
f. South Hadley WWTP, Total Nitrogen
g. Ipswich WWTF, Zinc
h. Bridgewater WWTF, Ammonia
i. Fairhaven, Copper
j. Fairhaven, Ammonia
k. Medfield WWTF, Ammonia (monthly ave, year-round)
2. Within twelve (12) months of the effective date of the authorization to discharge under the
General Permit, the Permittee shall submit to EPA and MassDEP a status report relative to the
process improvements necessary to achieve the permit limit.
G. Additional Requirements for Facilities Discharging to the Long Island Sound Watershed,
the Blackstone River Watershed, the Taunton River Watershed, as well as the Plymouth
WWTP and Fairhaven WPCF
This requirement applies to Permittees discharging within the Long Island Sound watershed,
Blackstone River watershed, Taunton River watershed, as well as the Plymouth WWTP and
Fairhaven WPCF, as identified in Attachment E of this permit.
1. Within one year of the effective date of the authorization to discharge under the permit, the
Permittee shall complete an evaluation of alternative methods of operating the existing
wastewater treatment facility to optimize the removal of nitrogen in order to minimize the
annual average mass discharge of total nitrogen, and submit a report to EPA and the State
documenting this evaluation and presenting a description of recommended operational
changes. The Permittee shall implement the recommended operational changes in order to
minimize the discharge loading of nitrogen. The methods to be evaluated include, but are not
limited to, operational changes designed to enhance nitrification (seasonal and year-round),
incorporation of anoxic zones, septage receiving policies and procedures, and side stream
management.
If the Permittee has already conducted this evaluation under their existing permit, this
requirement does not apply, and the Permittee shall continue to optimize the treatment facility
operations relative to total nitrogen (TN) removal through measures and/or operational changes
designed to enhance the removal of nitrogen in order to minimize the annual average mass
discharge of total nitrogen. For such Permittees that only had cold weather seasonal

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 27 of 34
optimization requirements in their existing permit, the Permittee shall continue to operate the
treatment facility to reduce the discharge of total nitrogen during the months of November to
April to the maximum extent possible. All available treatment equipment in place at the facility
shall be operated unless equal or better performance can be achieved in a reduced operational
mode. The addition of a carbon source that may be necessary in order to meet the total nitrogen
limit during the months of May to October is not required during the months of November to
April.
2. The Permittee shall submit an annual report to EPA and the State, by February 1st of each year,
that summarizes activities related to optimizing nitrogen removal efficiencies, documents the
annual nitrogen discharge load from the facility, and tracks trends relative to the previous
calendar year and the previous five (5) calendar years. If, in any year, the treatment facility
discharges of TN on an average annual basis have increased, the annual report shall include a
detailed explanation of the reasons why TN discharges have increased, including any changes
in influent flows/loads and any operational changes. The report shall include all supporting
data.
3. The following Permittees are discharging within the Long Island Sound watershed and their
current permits do not contain total nitrogen limits. This General Permit establishes the
following rolling annual average total nitrogen limits, which are also included in Attachment
E.
Permittee
Rolling Annual Average Total Nitrogen Limit
Warren WWTF
125 lb/day
Ware WWTP
83 lb/day
Greenfield WPCP
283 lb/day
Belchertown WWTP
83 lb/day
South Hadley WWTP
350 lb/day
Easthampton WWTF
317 lb/day4
Spencer WWTP
90 lb/days
Sturbridge WPCF
108 lb/day
Southbridge WWTP
314 lb/day
4 The total nitrogen mass limit for Easthampton is the total allowable mass discharge from both Outfall 001 and 002
combined.
5 The total nitrogen mass limit for Spencer shall be based on influent flow rather than effluent flow.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 28 of 34
H. Submittal of Facility -Specific Information
Each permittee shall perform three full pollutant scans consistent with the requirements of NPDES
Form 2A, Tables B and C, using a representative composite sample once per quarter in the final 3
full calendar quarters of the 5-year permit term. The results for all three scans shall be summarized
and submitted as a single electronic attachment to the DMR for the final full calendar quarter
before the expiration date of the General Permit (in accordance with Part V.2 below). This
submittal shall also include the following information that EPA has deemed necessary for
development of the next reissuance of this General Permit:
• Provide the current average daily volume of inflow and infiltration (I/1)
• Provide an updated Flow Diagram or Schematic for the WWTF
• Provide a summary and schedule for any ongoing or planned facility upgrades
• Provide a list of Significant Industrial Users and Categorical Industrial Users contributing
flow to the system (including average volume contributed from each)
• Provide a summary of sewage sludge treatment and disposal practices (including disposal
method, disposal amount in dry metric tons, name and address of any third -party
contractor, etc.).
I. State 401 Certification Conditions
This Permit has received state water quality certification issued by the State under § 401(a) of the
CWA and 40 CFR § 124.53. EPA incorporates the following state water quality certification
requirements into the Final Permit:
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the 2022 Federal NPDES Permit to the contrary,
monitoring results of the influent, effluent, and sludge for HAS compounds shall be
reported to MassDEP electronically, at massdey.npdes(&mass.gov, or as otherwise
specified, within 30 days after they are received.
2. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21, §§ 26-53, and 314 CMR 3.00 and 4.00, including 314 CMR
3.11(2)(a)6., and in order to ensure the maintenance of surface waters free from pollutants
in concentrations or combinations that are toxic to humans, aquatic life, or wildlife, in
accordance with 314 CMR 4.05(5)(e), MassDEP has determined that it is necessary that the
permittee commence annual monitoring of all Significant Industrial Users6,7 discharging
into the POTW consistent with the 2022 NPDES General Permit in accordance with the
6 Significant Industrial User (SIU) is defined at 40 CFR part 403: All industrial users subject to Categorical
Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR chapter I, subpart N; and any other industrial user that:
discharges an average of 25,000 GPD or more of process wastewater to the POTW, contributes a process wastestream
that makes up 5% or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW, or designated as
such by the POTW on the basis that the industrial users has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's
operation or for violating any Pretreatment Standards or requirement.
7 This requirement applies to all Significant Industrial Users and not just those within the sectors identified by EPA in
the NPDES permit.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 29 of 34
table below. Notwithstanding any other provision of the 2022 NPDES General Permit to
the contrary, monitoring results shall be reported to MassDEP electronically at
[e-mail] within 30 days after they are received.
Parameter
Units
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
ng/L
Annual
24-hour Composite
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
ng/L
Annual
24-hour Composite
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
ng/L
Annual
24-hour Composite
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
ng/L
Annual
24-hour Composite
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
ng/L
Annual
24-hour Composite
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
ng/L
Annual
24-hour Composite
IV. Obtaining Authorization to Discharge
A. Obtaining Coverage
To obtain coverage under the General Permit, facilities identified in Attachment E of this General
Permit may, at their election, submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to EPA within 30 days of the
effective date of the General Permit in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.28(b)(2)(i) & (ii). The
contents of the NOI shall include at a minimum, the legal name and address of the owner or
operator, the facility name and address, type of facility or discharges, the receiving stream(s) and
be signed by the operator in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR § 122.22,
including the certification statement found at § 122.22(d), as follows:
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under
my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of
the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for
knowing violations.
All NOIs must be submitted to EPA either electronically to RINPDESReporting(a,epa.gov with
copy to Duspiva.Michele(a oa.gov (Note: electronic submittals must include electronic signature)
or physically to the following address:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Municipal Permits Section
5 Post Office Square — Suite 100
Mail Code — 06-1
Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 30 of 34
Alternately, the Director may notify a discharger that it is covered by this General Permit,
even if the discharger has not submitted a notice of intent to be covered in accordance with
40 CFR § 122.28(b)(2)(vi). EPA has determined that the eligible dischargers listed in
Attachment E of this General Permit may be authorized to discharge under the General
Permit by this type of notification. Such authorization to discharge will be effective upon
the date indicated in written notice from EPA.
Facilities will maintain coverage under their existing individual permits until receiving written
notification from EPA of authorization to discharge under the Medium WWTF GP. Such
authorization will be effective upon the date indicated in written notice from EPA. As a
precondition to obtaining authorization to discharge under the Medium WWTF GP, authorization
to discharge pursuant to their individual permits will be removed using appropriate procedures
under 40 CFR Part 124. Therefore, authorization to discharge under the Medium WWTF GP will
be subject to completion of appropriate Part 124 proceedings and will be effective upon the date
indicated in written notice from EPA.
B. When the Director May Require Application for an Individual NPDES Permit
The Director may require any operator authorized by or requesting coverage under this general
permit to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit. Any interested person may petition
the Director to take such action. Instances where an individual permit may be required include the
following:
1. A determination under 40 CFR § 122.28(b)(3), including:
a. A change has occurred in the availability of the demonstrated technology of practices
for the control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the point source(s);
b. Effluent limitation guidelines are promulgated for the point source(s) covered by this
permit;
A Water Quality Management Plan or Total Maximum Daily Load containing
requirements applicable to such point source(s) is approved and inconsistent with this
permit;
d. Circumstances have changed since the time of the request to be covered so that the
discharger is no longer appropriately controlled under the general permit, or either a
temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge is
necessary; and
e. The discharge(s) is a significant contributor of pollutants.
2. The discharger is not in compliance with the conditions of this General Permit.
3. The discharge(s) is in violation of State water quality standards for the receiving water.
4. Actual or imminent harm to aquatic organisms, including ESA or human health, is
identified.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 31 of 34
C. When an Individual Permit May Be Requested
In accordance with 40 CFR § 122.28(b)(3)(iii), any owner or operator authorized by this
General Permit may request to be excluded from the coverage of this General Permit. The
owner or operator shall submit an application for a permit under § 122.21, with reasons supporting
the request, to the Director no later than 90 days after the publication by EPA of the Notice of
Availability of the final General Permit. The request shall be processed under 40 CFR Part 124.
The request shall be granted by issuing of an individual permit if the reasons cited by the owner or
operator are adequate to support the request.
When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an operator otherwise subject to this General
Permit, the applicability of this General Permit to that owner or operator is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the individual permit.
D. EPA Determination of Coverage
Any operator may request to be covered under this General Permit but the final authority rests with
EPA. Coverage under this General Permit will not be effective until receipt of notification of
inclusion from EPA. The effective date of coverage will be the date indicated in the authorization
to discharge provided by EPA in writing. Any additional State conditions will be provided in
writing.
Any operator authorized to discharge under this General Permit will receive written notification
from EPA. Failure to receive from EPA written notification of permit coverage means that the
operator is not authorized to discharge under this General Permit.
V. Monitoring, Record -Keeping, and Reporting Requirements
Unless otherwise specified in this permit, the Permittee shall submit reports, requests, and
information and provide notices in the manner described in this section.
1. Submittal of DMRs Using NetDMR
The Permittee shall continue to submit its monthly monitoring data in discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs) to EPA and MassDEP no later than the 15th day of the month electronically
using NetDMR. When the Permittee submits DMRs using NetDMR, it is not required to
submit hard copies of DMRs to EPA or MassDEP. NetDMR is accessible through EPA's
Central Data Exchange at https:Hcdx.0a.gov/.
2. Submittal of Reports as NetDMR Attachments
Unless otherwise specified in this permit, the Permittee and Co-permittee(s), if any, shall
electronically submit all reports to EPA and MassDEP as NetDMR attachments rather than as
hard copies. See Part V.5 for more information on State reporting. Because the due dates for
reports described in this permit may not coincide with the due date for submitting DMRs
(which is no later than the 15th day of the month), a report submitted electronically as a
NetDMR attachment shall be considered timely if it is electronically submitted to EPA using
NetDMR with the next DMR due following the report due date specified in this permit.

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 32 of 34
3. Submittal of Industrial User and Pretreatment Related Reports
a. Prior to 21 December 2025, all reports and information required of the Permittee in the
Industrial Users and Pretreatment Program section of this permit shall be submitted to the
Pretreatment Coordinator in EPA Region 1 Water Division (WD). Starting on 21
December 2025, these submittals must be done electronically as NetDMR attachments
and/or using EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT"), or another approved EPA
system, which will be accessible through EPA's Central Data Exchange at
https://cdx.epa.gov/. These requests, reports and notices include:
(1) Annual Pretreatment Reports,
(2) Pretreatment Reports Reassessment of Technically Based Industrial Discharge
Limits Form,
(3) Revisions to Industrial Discharge Limits,
(4) Report describing Pretreatment Program activities, and
(5) Proposed changes to a Pretreatment Program
b. This information shall be submitted to EPA WD as a hard copy at the following
address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Division
Regional Pretreatment Coordinator
5 Post Office Square - Suite 100 (06-03)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
4. Submittal of Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Reports
By February 19 of each year, the Permittee must electronically report their annual
Biosolids/Sewage Sludge Report for the previous calendar year using EPA's NPDES
Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT"), or another approved EPA system, which is accessible
through EPA's Central Data Exchange at https:Hcdx.epa.gov/.
5. Submittal of Requests and Reports to EPA Water Division (WD)
a. The following requests, reports, and information described in this permit shall be submitted
to the NPDES Applications Coordinator in EPA Water Division (WD):
(1) Transfer of permit notice;
(2) Request for changes in sampling location;
(3) Request for reduction in testing frequency;
(4) Request for change in WET testing requirement; and
(5) Report on unacceptable dilution water / request for alternative dilution water for WET
testing.
(6) Report of new industrial user commencing discharge

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 33 of 34
(7) Report received from existing industrial user
(8) Request for extension of compliance schedule
b. These reports, information, and requests shall be submitted to EPA WD electronically at
RINPDESReportin 0a.gov.
6. Submittal of Sewer Overflow and Bypass Reports and Notifications
The Permittee shall submit required reports and notices under Part VII.BA.c, for bypasses, and
Part VII.D. Le, for sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) electronically using EPA's NPDES
Electronic Reporting Tool ("NeT"), which will be accessible through EPA's Central Data
Exchange at https://cdx.epa.gov/.
7. State Reporting
Duplicate signed copies of all WET test reports shall be submitted to the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management, at the following
address:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Resources
Division of Watershed Management
8 New Bond Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01606
8. Verbal Reports and Verbal Notifications
a. Any verbal reports or verbal notifications, if required in Parts I through VII of this General
Permit, shall be made to both EPA and to MassDEP. This includes verbal reports and
notifications which require reporting within 24 hours (e.g., Part VII.B.4.c.(2), Part
VII.B.5.c.(3), and Part VILD. Le).
b. Verbal reports and verbal notifications shall be made to:
EPA ECAD at 617-918-1510
and
MassDEP's Emergency Response at 888-304-1133
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Notice of Termination (NOT) of Discharge or Change of Owner/Operator
Permittees shall notify EPA and the appropriate State agency in writing upon the termination of
any discharge(s) authorized by this General Permit. The NOT shall include the name, mailing
address, phone number, and the location of the facility for which the notification is being
submitted, the NPDES permit number of the discharge identified by the notice, and an indication
of whether the discharge has been eliminated or if the owner/operator of the discharge has
changed. The NOT shall be signed in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR

Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities General Permit 2022 Final General Permit
MAG590000 Page 34 of 34
§ 122.22. Completed and signed NOTs shall be submitted to EPA at
RINPDESRenortina(&ena.izov and to MassDEP at MassDEP.NPDESnmass.aov.
B. Continuation of this General Permit After Expiration
If this General Permit is not reissued prior to its expiration date, it will be administratively
continued in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 558(c)) and 40 CFR §
122.6 and remain in full force and in effect for discharges covered prior to its expiration.
Coverage under this permit will not be available to any facility that is not authorized to discharge
under the General Permit before the expiration date.
Any Permittee whose authorization to discharge under this General Permit was administratively
continued will automatically remain covered by the continued General Permit until the earlier of:
1. Authorization to discharge under a reissued permit or a replacement of this permit; or
2. The Permittee's submittal of a Notice of Termination; or
3. Issuance of an individual permit for the Permittee's discharge; or
4. A formal permit decision by EPA not to reissue this General Permit, at which time EPA
will identify a reasonable time period for covered dischargers to seek coverage under an
alternative general permit or an individual permit. Coverage under this permit will cease at
the end of this time period.

ATTACHMENT 11

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
NPDES PERMIT NO. MAG590000
MEDIUM WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY GENERAL PERMIT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's New England Region (EPA) is issuing a Final
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Medium
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) located in Massachusetts. This permit is being issued
under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C., §§ 1251 et seq.
In accordance with the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 124.17, this
document presents EPA's responses to comments received on the Draft NPDES General Permit
# MAG590000 ("Draft General Permit"). The Response to Comments explains and supports
EPA's determinations that form the basis of the Final General Permit. From February 8, 2022,
through April 26, 2022, EPA solicited public comments on the Draft General Permit.
EPA received comments from:
• Town of Wareham, dated March 9, 2022
• Town of Marshfield, dated March 30, 2022
• MFN Regional Wastewater District, dated March 30, 2022
• Town of Bridgewater, dated April 4, 2022
• City of Greenfield, dated April 8, 2022
• Town of Sturbridge, dated April 18, 2022
• Town of Uxbridge, dated April 19, 2022
• Town of Maynard, dated April 20, 2022
• Town of Adams, dated April 20, 2022
• Spencer Sewer Commission, dated April 21, 2022
• Town of Milford, dated April 21, 2022
• City of Gardner, dated April 22, 2022
• MWRA, dated April 25, 2022
• Hull Sewer Department, dated April 25, 2022
• City of Easthampton, dated April 25, 2022
• Town of Scituate, dated April 19, 2022
• Town of Sturbridge, dated April 25, 2022
• Town of Northbridge, dated April 25, 2022
• Town of Belchertown, dated April 26, 2022
• Town of Pepperell, dated April 26, 2022

• Town of Ware, dated April 26, 2022, with an additional comment dated April 27, 20221
• Town of Fairhaven, dated April 26, 2022
• Town of Grafton Board of Sewer Commissioners, dated April 26, 2022
• Town of Concord, dated April 26, 2022
• Town of Scituate, dated April 26, 2022
• Town of Southampton, dated February 10, 2022
• Wastewater Advisory Committee to the MWRA, dated March 29, 2022
• MWRA Advisory Board, dated April 25, 2022
• Upper Blackstone Clean Water, dated April 26, 2022
• Massachusetts Water Environment Association, dated April 26, 2022
• National Association of Clean Water Agencies, dated April 26, 2022
• Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship, dated April 26, 2022
• Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, dated April 26, 2022
• OARS, dated April 21, 2022
• Taunton River Watershed Alliance, dated April 22, 2022
• Connecticut River Conservancy, dated April 25, 2022
• Charles River Watershed Association, dated April 26, 2022
• North and South Rivers Watersheds Association, dated April 26, 2022
• Buzzards Bay Coalition, dated April 26, 2022
• Hoosic River Watershed Association, dated March 29, 2022
• IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., dated April 14, 2022
• Curt McCormick, dated April 11, 2022
Although EPA's knowledge of the facilities has benefited from the various comments and
additional information submitted, the information and arguments presented did not raise any
substantial new questions concerning the permit that warranted a reopening of the public
comment period. EPA does, however, make certain clarifications and changes in response to
comments. These are explained in this document and reflected in the Final General Permit.
Below EPA provides a summary of the changes made in the Final General Permit. The analyses
underlying these changes are contained in the responses to individual comments that follow.
A copy of the Final General Permit and this response to comments document will be posted on
the EPA Region 1 web site: https://www.epa.aov/npdes-permits/massachusetts-npdes-permits.
'EPA notes this comment was untimely under 40 C.F.R. § 124.13. See also id. at § 124.19(a)(2). EPA is
nevertheless exercising its discretion to provide a response to this comment for the benefit of the public given that it
was submitted only a few hours late and was a very minor omission to their prior submittal.

A copy of the Final General Permit may be also obtained by writing or calling Michele Duspiva,
USEPA, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: 06-4), Boston, MA 02109-3912;
Telephone: [phone]; Email duspiva.michele&ep� a.gov.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Changes to the Final General Permit................................................................. 5
11. General Response to Comments on Benefits and Appropriateness of General Permit
Approach......................................................................................................................................... 8
A. Background on General Permit Program......................................................................... 8
B. Significant Environmental Benefit and Administrative Efficiency to General Permit
Approach................................................................................................................................... 10
C. Consistency with General Permit Regulations............................................................... 13
IIl. Responses to Comments.................................................................................................... 16
A. Comments from Guy Campinha, Director, Wareham Water Pollution Control Facility,
Town of Wareham, on March 9, 2022: ..................................................................................... 16
B. Comments from Clint Stetson, Chief Operator, Town of Marshfield Wastewater
Treatment Facility, on March 30, 2022: ................................................................................... 18
C. Comments from Lee Azinheira, Executive Director, MFN Regional Wastewater
District, on March 30, 2022: ..................................................................................................... 20
D. Comments from Helen Gordon, PE, BCEE, MCPPO, Senior Program Manager,
Environmental Partners Group, On behalf of the Town of Bridgewater, on April 4, 2022:.... 21
E. Comments from Mark Holley, Water Facilities Superintendent, City of Greenfield, on
April8, 2022: ............................................................................................................................ 26
F. Comments from Joshua Earnest, Assistant Project Coordinator, Town of Sturbridge on
March29, 2022: ........................................................................................................................ 27
G. Comments from Christopher Welch, Operations Supervisor, Wastewater Division,
Town of Uxbridge, on April 19, 2022: ..................................................................................... 27
H. Comments from Michelle Murphy, Project Manager, Maynard WWTF, Town of
Maynard, on April 20, 2022: ..................................................................................................... 29
1. Comments from Jay R Green, Town Administrator, Town of Adams, on April 20, 2022:
30
J. Comments from Adam Higgins, Project Engineer, Wright -Pierce and the Spencer Sewer
Commission, on April 21, 2022: ............................................................................................... 33
K. Comments from John Mainini, Director of Operations, Town of Milford Board of
Sewer Commissioners, on April 21, 2022: ............................................................................... 34
L. Comments from Dane Arnold, Director of Public Works, City of Gardner, on April 22,
2022: 35
M. Comments from David Coppes, Chief Operating Officer, Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, on April 25, 2022: .................................................................................. 36
3

N. Comments from Hull Sewer Department, on April 25, 2022: ....................................... 63
O. Comments from Carl Williams, Wastewater Superintendent, Easthampton, on April 25,
2022: 65
P. Comments from James Boudreau, Town Administrator, Kevin Cafferty, Director of
Public Works, and William Branton, Wastewater Superintendent, Town of Scituate, on April
19, 2022: ................................................................................................................................... 73
Q. Comments from Ian Catlow, PE, on behalf of the Town of Sturbridge, on April 25,
2022: 77
R. Comments from Mark Kuras, Department of Public Works, Town of Northbridge, on
April25, 2022: .......................................................................................................................... 79
S. Comments from Steven Williams, Director, Department of Public Works, Town of
Belchertown, on April 26, 2022: ............................................................................................... 92
T. Comments from Paul Brinkman, PE, Director, Department of Public Works, Town of
Pepperell, on April 26, 2022: .................................................................................................... 99
U. Comments from Ian Catlow, PE, Director, on behalf of the Town of Ware, on April 26,
2022: 104
V. Comments from Ian Catlow, PE, Director, on behalf of the Town of Fairhaven, on April
26, 2022: ................................................................................................................................. 110
W. Comments from Paul F. Cournoyer, Superintendent of Sewers, Town of Grafton Board
of Sewer Commissioners, on April 26, 2022: ......................................................................... 118
X. Comments from Christopher Whelan, Town Manager, Town of Concord, on April 26,
2022: 123
Y. Comments from Ian Catlow, PE, on behalf of the Town of Scituate, on April 26, 2022:
137
Z. Comments from Geraldine R. Swanson, MPA, Public Health Director, Southampton
Board of Health, Town of Southampton, on February 10, 2022: ........................................... 139
AA. Comments from Wayne A. Chouinard, Chair, Wastewater Advisory Committee to the
MWRA, on March 29, 2022:.................................................................................................. 140
BB. Comments from Lou Taverna, Chairman, MWRA Advisory Board, on April 25, 2022:
141
CC. Comments from Karla Sangrey, Engineer Director / Treasurer, Upper Blackstone Clean
Water, April 26, 2022............................................................................................................. 144
DD. Comments from Mickey Nowak, Executive Director, Massachusetts Water
Environment Association, on April 26, 2022: ........................................................................ 147
EE. Comments from Emily Remmel, Director of Regulatory Affairs, National Association
of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), on April 26, 2022: ...................................................... 149
FF. Comments from Philip D. Guerin, President and Chairman, Massachusetts Coalition for
Water Resources Stewardship, on April 26, 2022: ................................................................. 155
GG. Comments from Julia Blatt, Executive Director of Massachusetts River Alliance, on
April 26, 2022. Co -signed by: Clean Water Advocacy Save Buzzards Bay, Charles River
Conservancy, Charles River Watershed Association, Chicopee 4 Rivers Watershed Council,
al

Connecticut River Conservancy, Conservation Law Foundation, Hoosic River Watershed
Association, Housatonic Valley Association, Ipswich River Watershed Association,
Merrimack River Watershed Council, Nashua River Watershed Association, Neponset River
Watershed Association, North and South Rivers Watershed Association, OARS, Save the Bay
/ Narragansett Bay, Taunton River Watershed Alliance, and Waterkeeper Alliance ............. 159
HH. Comments from Alison Field-Juma, Executive Director, OARS, on April 21, 2022: 177
II. Comments from Stephen J. Silva TRWA Secretary, Taunton River Watershed Alliance,
onApril 22, 2022:................................................................................................................... 196
JJ. Comments from Andrea Donlon, River Steward, Connecticut River Conservancy, on
April25, 2022......................................................................................................................... 199
KK. Comments from Heather Miller, General Counsel and Policy Director, Charles River
Watershed Association, on April 26, 2022............................................................................. 213
LL. Comments from Samantha Woods, Executive Director, North and South Rivers
Watersheds Association, on April 26, 2022............................................................................ 224
MM. Comments from Korrin Petersen, Vice President of Clean Water Advocacy, Buzzards
Bay Coalition, on April 26, 2022............................................................................................ 228
NN. Comments from Andrew Kawczak, President, Hoosic River Watershed Association, on
March29, 2022:...................................................................................................................... 234
00. Comments from Jody Frymire, Regulatory Affairs Specialist, IDEXX Laboratories, Inc,
onApril 14, 2022:................................................................................................................... 235
PP. Comments from Curt McCormick, on April 11, 2022................................................. 238
I. Summary of Changes to the Final General Permit
1. Table 1 of Part ILA of the Final General Permit has been updated to indicate 130
cfu/100 ml for discharges of enterococci into Class SA or SB waters. See Response 6.
2. A line has been added to footnote 7 of Table 1 of Part II.A of the Final General
Permit indicating that continuous pH monitoring fulfills the pH monitoring
requirements. See Response 11.
3. Part III.F.3 of the Draft General Permit (aluminum compliance schedule) has been
removed from the Final General Permit. See Response 26.
4. The list of six PFAS analytes listed in Table 1 of Part ILA of the Draft General Permit
(repeated for effluent, influent and sludge monitoring) has been removed the and
replaced in the Final General Permit with one line (repeated for effluent, influent and
sludge monitoring) that says "PFAS Analytes" which references the same footnote 12
that refers to the complete list of 40 analytes in Attachment H of the Final General
Permit. Parts III.C.3 and III.D.7 have also been clarified to reference Attachment H.
See Response 48.
5

5. A typographical error in Part ILC.1 of the Draft General Permit which refers twice to
"Part ILD. Le" and should refer to "Part VILD. Le" is corrected in the Final General
Permit. See Response 54.
6. The pretreatment annual report due date for MWRA Clinton in Part III.D.3 of the
Final General Permit has been changed to October 31". See Response 58.
7. The term "notifications" is replaced with "notices" in Part V.6 of the Final General
Permit, consistent with Part VII.B.4.c. See Response 59.
8. The new or more stringent ammonia limits in Attachment E have changed for
Northbridge, Belchertown, MFN Regional and Bridgewater, as described in Response
61.
9. The monthly average aluminum limits for Northbridge, Uxbridge, Milford, Adams,
Ware, Gardner, and Ayer have been revised, as described in Response 75.
10. Outfall 002 for Easthampton has been added to footnote 7 of Part II.A Table 1 of the
Final General Permit, allowing for a pH study. See Response 79.
11. The last sentence of Part VLA of the Final General Permit has been changed to say
"Completed and signed NOTs shall be submitted to EPA at
RINPDESReportin _ oa.gov and to MassDEP at MassDEP.NPDES&mass.gov."
See Response 82.
12. Scituate has been removed from Section II.E.1 of the Final General Permit. See
Response 92.
13. For Northbridge, the 7Q10 flow, dilution factor, and limits for ammonia, aluminum
and cadmium have been updated in Attachment E. See Response 101.
14. Part II.B.3 of the Final General Permit has been changed to: "The discharge shall be
free from pollutants in concentrations or combinations that adversely affect the
physical or chemical nature of the bottom, interfere with the propagation of fish or
shellfish, or adversely affect populations of non -mobile or sessile benthic organisms."
See Response 108.
15. For Belchertown, the 7Q 10 flow, dilution factor, and limits for ammonia and
aluminum have been updated in Attachment E. See Response 122.
16. For Pepperell, the copper limits in Attachment E have been revised to 73.6 µg/L
(maximum daily) and 40.6 µg/L (monthly average) and Pepperell has been removed
from the list of compliance schedules in Part III.F.1. See Response 127.
17. For Grafton, the 7Q10 flow, dilution factor, and limits for TRC and C-NOEC have
been updated in Attachment E. See Response 163.
Con

18. The term "Contaminated Sites" has been changed to "Known or Suspected PFAS
Contaminated Sites" in Sections III.C.3 and III.D.7 of the Final General Permit. See
Response 169.
19. Southampton has been removed from Attachment E as an eligible Co-permittee. See
Response 179.
20. Total phosphorus monitoring frequency for April through October has been changed
from 2/month to 1/week. See Response 226.
21. EPA has created a new attachment (i.e., "Attachment I — Facility -Specific Permit
Terms") which contains all of the facility -specific permit terms contained in the Draft
Authorizations. See Response 227.
EPA notes that changes based on this Response to Comments are either changes to
the Draft General Permit itself (including Attachment E) or are changes that only
apply to a single Draft Authorization (mostly based on typographical errors) without
any change to the General Permit itself. The first type of changes are summarized in
this list of changes. The second type of changes are described in Responses 22
(Sturbridge), 64 (MWRA Clinton), 149 (Fairhaven), 226 (Hudson), 249 (Athol), 259
(Spencer), and 265 (Warren). Both types of changes are included in Attachment I and
will be reflected in the final authorizations for each facility.
22. Erving Center WWTP 2 has been removed from Attachment E in the Final General
Permit and is not eligible for coverage. The reference to Erving Center WWTP 2 in
Part II.A footnote 5 has also been removed. See Response 241.
23. The Final General Permit includes a new provision at Part III.H (Submittal of
Facility -Specific Information) that requires the collection and submission of three full
pollutant scans (consistent with the requirements of NPDES Application Form 2A,
Tables B and C) conducted once per quarter in the final 3 full calendar quarters of the
5-year permit term as well as additional facility -specific information. See Response
272.
24. The Final General Permit has been updated to require 3/week monitoring for fecal
coliform for all dischargers to Class SA and SB waters. See Response 279.
25. The exclusion in Part I.0 regarding Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries has been
changed to "Discharges inconsistent with the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act,
in accordance with 301 CMR 27.00;" and the exclusion in Part I.0 regarding the
territorial sea has been removed. See Response 286.
26. Industrial Pretreatment Program Development requirements have been added as
Attachment J to the Final General Permit and will apply only to Northbridge as noted
in Attachment E of the Final General Permit. See Response 295.
7

II. General Response to Comments on Benefits and Appropriateness of General Permit
Approach
EPA received several comments regarding the appropriateness and benefits of the general permit
approach. Accordingly, and after consideration of those comments, EPA provides the following
overview of the general permit approach, the significant environmental benefits and
administrative efficiencies gained by employing this approach for medium WWTFs, and the
consistency of this approach with EPA's general permit regulations.
A. Background on General Permit Program
A "general permit" is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 to mean "an NPDES `permit' issued under
§ 122.28 authorizing a category of discharges under the CWA within a geographic area." The
general permit program arose out of the broad grant of authority in section 402(a) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the decision of NRDC v. Train, 396 F.Supp. 1393, 1402 (D.D.C. 1975),
aff d, Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ("The [Clean
Water] Act allows such [area -wide or general permits]. Area -wide regulation is one well -
established means of coping with administrative exigency."). Under the general permit program,
the permitting authority may issue a permit to cover a class of similar dischargers or treatment
works treating domestic sewage in a defined geographic area with the same effluent limitations.
In 1996, EPA proposed to amend its general permit regulations to "improve administration and
operation of the general permit program and encourage more widespread use of general
permits." 61 Fed. Reg. 65268, 65272 (Dec. 11, 1996) (emphasis added). EPA's decision to
amend its regulations was intended to correct a misunderstanding that general permits must be
limited to stormwater, or only one category of non -storm water dischargers, and could not
include water quality -based effluent limits (WQBELs). In order to encourage expanded use of
general permits, EPA clarified that "a general permit for non -storm water dischargers may cover
more than one category or subcategory of sources or treatment works treating domestic sewage."
Id. EPA explained this change would "enable greater permit drafting flexibility and would allow
the Director to write a general permit covering (as separate categories) permittees whose
discharges or sludge use or disposal practices differ substantially, for example, regarding flow or
pollutant load, as well as for those permittees with similar discharges or sludge use or disposal
practices (a single category)." Id.
EPA also encouraged expanded use of general permits by adding a new paragraph, (a)(3), to 40
C.F.R. § 122.28 "in part to clarify that general permit categories can be used to impose water
quality -based limitations as well as technology -based limitations." Id. EPA further explained:
Because the proposal would allow issuance of a single general permit to cover multiple
categories of facilities, it would facilitate the use of general permits in areas with
differing water quality requirements or standards. It may allow the permitting authority to
issue general permits on a watershed or geographic basis to facilities with the same water
quality requirements. The proposal would allow a permit drafted to cover a single
category of dischargers or treatment works treating domestic sewage to cover different
subcategories subject to different effluent limitations, standards, or conditions. This
should reduce the burden on the permitting agency by decreasing the number of general
permits issued. The proposal intends to provide flexibility to deal with the variations
N.

between the different dischargers or treatment works treating domestic sewage (or water
quality based stream segments) covered under a single general permit."
Id.
The Agency has elsewhere described the benefits and utility of general permits as:
"Where a large number of similar facilities require permits, a general permit allows the
permitting authority to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more
timely permit coverage than issuing an individual permit to each facility. In addition,
using a general permit ensures consistent permit conditions for comparable facilities."
NPDES Permit Writer's Manual at 3-2. In short, the Agency has recognized that general permits
encourage widespread permit coverage, yield environmental benefits through widespread and
up-to-date permit coverage, and enhance permitting efficiency and thus has structured its
regulations in order to facilitate expansion of their use, subject to the limitations contained at 40
C.F.R. § 122.28.
For purposes of this response, the operative limitations contained at 40 C.F.R. § 122.28 are as
follows:
"(2) Sources. The general permit may be written to regulate one or more categories or
subcategories of discharges or sludge use or disposal practices or facilities, within the
area described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, where the sources within a covered
subcategory of discharges are either:
(i) Storm water point sources; or (ii) One or more categories or subcategories
of point sources other than storm water point sources, or one or more categories
or subcategories of "treatment works treating domestic sewage", if the sources or
"treatment works treating domestic sewage" within each category or subcategory
all:
(A) Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations;
(B) Discharge the same types of wastes or engage in the same types
of sludge use or disposal practices;
(C) Require the same effluent limitations, operating conditions,
or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal;
(D) Require the same or similar monitoring; and (E) In the opinion of
the Director, are more appropriately controlled under a general permit than
under individual permits.
(3) Water quality -based limits. Where sources within a specific category or subcategory
of dischargers are subject to water quality -based limits imposed pursuant to § 122.44, the
sources in that specific category or subcategory shall be subject to the same water
quality -based effluent limitations."
Section II.0 of this response details this General Permit's consistency with § 122.28.
I

B. Significant Environmental Benefit and Administrative Efficiency to General Permit
Approach
Consistent with the benefits anticipated in EPA's promulgation of the general permit regulations,
the Region has identified significant environmental benefits and administrative efficiencies that
will result by employing a general permit for medium WWTPs. These benefits include: (1) more
timely, comprehensive permit coverage, that can be consistently updated at regular 5-year
intervals; (2) imposition of any necessary provisions that may need to be imposed on a site -
specific basis, including those required to ensure compliance with state water quality standards
and to maintain consistency with the assumptions and requirements of any available TMDL
wasteload allocation; and (3) administrative efficiencies in permitting dischargers by category,
which will allow scarce permitting resources to be reallocated to other dischargers, including
larger sources within these same watersheds.
Under the general permitting scheme EPA expects to have a much smaller permit backlog
resulting in more frequent permit reissuances for this general permit as well as all other NPDES
permits in MA. While it is hard to determine the precise schedule of future reissuances, and
notwithstanding limited resources, EPA prioritizes reissuance of general permits given their
broad scope compared to individual permits. Historically, the 44 facilities identified for coverage
were issued individual permits. Currently, 27 individual permits are expired and some have been
expired for nearly 10 years. The most recent issuances of these permits span from 2008 to 2021;
in other words, in the ordinary course, it took approximately 14 years to cycle through these
reissuances under the individual permitting scheme.
Given EPA's currently available resources, EPA anticipates that reissuance of these individual
permits could likely take at least 14 years to reissue again. Based on that timeline, many of these
facilities will be subject to the current issuance of this General Permit and as many as two
subsequent reissuances of this General Permit, inclusive of new, necessary environmental
protections, in roughly the same timeframe it would take for a single reissuance of their
individual permit under the individual permitting approach.
The significant improvement in permitting efficiency through the general permitting approach
can also be understood by comparing the number of facilities that received updated permit
coverage each fiscal year (i.e., October 1 through September 30). In 2021, EPA began a shift
from individual permit coverage to general permit coverage for municipal WWTFs. The first
step in this shift was to expand coverage under the Small WWTF General Permit (MA-
NHG580000) for small WWTFs (< 1 MGD) in MA and NH. Previously, that General Permit
covered approximately 22 WWTFs in MA and NH combined. In 2021, EPA reissued this
General Permit with greatly expanded coverage for approximately 62 WWTFs, including
approximately 40 WWTFs that were previously covered by an individual permit. The second
step in this shift is the development of this Medium WWTF General Permit, designed to cover
44 medium WWTFs (1 to 5 MGD) in MA that are currently all covered by an individual permit.
Comparing the overall number of facilities in MA and NH (i.e., the two states where EPA
Region 1 issues permits directly) that obtained updated permit coverage in recent years
highlights this drastic improvement in permitting efficiency. The table below presents this
10

comparison, including the issuance of the Small WWTF General Peruut in 2021 and the Medium
WF General Permit in 2022.2 WT
Number of WWTFs Treating Sanitary Waste in MA and NH
Receiving Updated Permit Coverage Each Year
so
,,, 70
■ General Permits
°1 60
_
■ Individual Permits
50
LL
p 40
L
30
20
z
to
0
2015 2016 2017
2018 2019 2020
Fiscal Year (Oct -Sept)
2021 2022
Improved permitting efficiency will result in more frequent permit reissuances for each facility,
expediting many substantive environmental benefits. The substantive environmental benefits of
more frequent permit reissuances are made abundantly clear by this General Permit, which
establishes the following improvements in water quality protection and accountability:
• a variety of new or more stringent limits for half of the WWTFs (Attachment E),
• nitrogen limits for all facilities in the Long Island Sound watershed (Attachment E),
• public notifications related to unauthorized discharges such as SSOs (Part II.C),
• notification of downstream drinking water systems of any emergency condition, plant
upset, bypass or other system failure (Part II.13),
• new PFAS monitoring for the facility as well as specific industrial users (Parts II.A, III.0
and IU D),
• improved O&M and mapping of the collection systems (Part III.A),
• increased ambient monitoring (Part II.A),
• chlorination -related alarms. (Part II.B.9), and
• improved oversight of industrial users (Parts I I.0 and III.D).
One illustrative example of the benefits of the general permit approach, and the greater number
of permits that will be issued under it, is with regard to new PFAS monitoring for POTWs as
well as specific industrial users (Parts II.A, III.0 and III.D). For many of the dischargers
covered, PFAS was not an identified issue at the time of their last permit issuance. EPA is now
2 EPA notes that there are over 200 WWTFs treating sanitary waste in MA and NH that have a NPDES permit.
Given that EPA has issued approximately 10 individual permits for such facilities per year, it would take
approximately 20 years to cycle through them all as individual permits assuming no significant change in resources
going forward. However, the Small and Medium WWTF General Permits are designed to cover over 100 facilities
combined, resulting in permit reissuances for all facilities at least twice as often under this permitting approach.
11

able to account for this pollutant and our emerging understanding of the risks associated with it
for this entire class of dischargers at one time. In reissuing the general permit more frequently,
EPA will once again be able to account for significant changes in the environment and
understanding, like PFAS, in a timely manner.
Additionally, this General Permit does not sacrifice any of the meaningful site -specific
protections needed for the various dischargers. It is notable that while several commenters raised
procedural objections to using a general permit, these commenters did not object to the
substantive permit limits included in the General Permit but rather supported them. This is the
result of EPA conducting individualized analysis for each of the 44 facilities identified for
coverage and including all necessary facility -specific permit terms. For TMDLS, this General
Permit will more efficiently regulate applicable dischargers through frequent permit reissuance
and, therefore, more opportunities to implement the adaptive management approach often
articulated in TMDLs. Given that EPA conducts a site -specific analysis on each WWTF
(including an evaluation of relevant TMDLs), this General Permit will incorporate more precise
and effective implementation of TMDLs than the current individual permitting approach.
In contrast, it would take many years for these same permit updates to be incorporated into 44
individual permits with no obvious environmental benefit linked with that less efficient
approach. The additional time and resources spent in issuing those 44 individual permits would
diminish the time and resources that could have been directed toward updating permit coverage
for other, larger WWTFs in Massachusetts that have an even greater environmental impact.
Additionally, EPA anticipates a significant reallocation of permitting resources to address
stormwater permitting in the coming years, which is enabled, in part, by this transition to this
General Permit. In other words, by implementing this general permit approach EPA not only
achieves environmental benefits from the medium WWTF dischargers through more timely, up
to date permitting, but also through the ability to issue more timely, up to date permits for other,
larger dischargers, including stormwater dischargers. Given this, maximizing permit coverage
under this General Permit also maximizes environmental protection and compliance with the
CWA throughout Massachusetts.
EPA also views this general permit as providing the same necessary and meaningful public
comment opportunities as the individual permit approach. The Draft GP and Fact Sheet
contained all the necessary information to understand the proposed permit limits and the
methodologies used to derive them, as would be contained in a draft individual permit. To
account for the expanded reach of this General Permit vs a single facility, EPA allotted 78-days
for public comment rather than the typical 30 days. Additionally, given the significant overlap of
the facilities, types of discharges, and environmental issues presented, a single comment period
creates a more streamlined and focused public review and comment and a more efficient process
for EPA in reviewing those comments. Rather than duplicating the effort to review a certain
permit requirement as it applies to one facility after another individually and submitting
comments again and again, an interested party can review that same permit requirement as it
would apply to several similar facilities and submit a single comment. Further, if that comment
has merit, EPA may then respond and implement a change that would apply to all such facilities
immediately.
Nevertheless, in response to several commenters' expressed desire for more procedural time to
consider the general permit, EPA commits, in its discretion, to two additional procedural
12

mechanisms for the next iteration of this general permit: (1) EPA will publish an advanced notice
of its preparation of a new draft general permit at least 30 days prior to the publication of the
new draft general permit to allow stakeholders to plan to allocate necessary resources during the
public comment period; and (2) EPA will provide a 90-day public comment period on the next
reissuance of the Medium WWTF General Permit to allow ample time for all stakeholders to
review and comment.
With regard to administrative efficiency, EPA has concluded based on its experience as
permitting authority in two New England states for 50 years that addressing 44 facilities in one
permitting action is far more efficient than developing 44 separate permits. EPA views this as not
only a short-term efficiency gain which will help eliminate the permit backlog, but an approach
that will realize this same gain in efficiency with each permit reissuance. The result will be that
all eligible dischargers will maintain, going forward, more updated permit coverage than under
an individual permitting scheme. As stated, this efficiency is crucial to allow the Region to
dedicate resources to update and reissue other NPDES permits, including for many large
WWTFs which discharge to the same waterbodies as facilities covered under this General
Permit.
C. Consistency with General Permit Regulations
In addition to being consistent with the animating policy behind the general permit regulations
(creating clear environmental and administrative benefits), this General Permit is also consistent
with the regulations themselves. Several commenters asserted that this GP is inconsistent with
EPA's regulations as a result of the site -specific WQBELs included. These comments are rooted
in two regulatory requirements:
• 40 C.F.R. § 122.28(a)(2)(ii)(C), which requires that each source "within each category or
subcategory ... [r]equire the same effluent limitations, operating conditions, or standards
for sewage sludge use or disposal," and
• 40 C.F.R. § 122.28(a)(3) which states that "[w]here sources within a specific category or
subcategory of dischargers are subject to water quality -based limits imposed pursuant to
§ 122.44, the sources in that specific category or subcategory shall be subject to the same
water quality -based effluent limitations."
The purpose behind the requirement to impose uniform WQBELs was two -fold: first to
encourage wider use of general permits by making clear they can include WQBELs, and, second,
to clarify that "general permits should not be used to provide permit coverage to loosely grouped
categories of dissimilar discharges." 61 Fed. Reg at 65273. It was not intended to curtail EPA's
ability to identify a category of sources (POTWs) and to then further subcategorize that group
based on attributes of the facility and constituents in the discharge. Id. ("To improve
administration and operation of the general permit program and to encourage more widespread
use of general permits, the Agency is proposing to amend the general permit regulations to allow
general permits to cover multiple categories of dischargers."). In so fashioning the regulation,
EPA identified permitting flexibility and efficiency as one rationale for such an approach:
The proposal would allow a permit drafted to cover a single category of dischargers or
treatment works treating domestic sewage to cover different subcategories subject to
13

different effluent limitations, standards, or conditions. This should reduce the burden on
the permitting agency by decreasing the number of general permits issued.
Id. Neither the text of the general permitting regulation nor its preamble preclude EPA from
establishing a subcategory of one, so long as the WQBELs applied to that discharger are
consistent with the requirements of the Act. This reading of the regulation is consistent with
EPA's intent to provide maximum flexibility under the general permit regulations to facilitate
administration of the NPDES program, as detailed in the preamble to the rule. 61 Fed. Reg.
65268, 65272 (December 11, 1996) ("EPA's NPDES general permit program arose out of the
broad grant of authority in section 402(a) of the CWA and the decision of NRDC v. Train, 396
F.Supp. 1393, 1402 (D.D.C. 1975), aff d, NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977)),
which recognized EPA's authority to employ administrative mechanisms, such as area (general)
permits, to assist the Agency in the practical administration of the NPDES permit program.").
As is clear, the commenters' objections to EPA's approach are misguided, centered as they are
on purported inconveniences to certain NGOs. EPA disagrees with the commenter's objections,
but more fundamentally observes that the thrust of EPA's general permit regulation is intended
in the first instance to provide convenience and flexibility to the permit issuer, as it carries out its
responsibilities to administer and implement the Act.
The substantive, environmentally protective lynchpin of this approach is that where there are
different WQBELs they must ensure, as all WQBELs must, that the discharge will achieve the
applicable water quality standards. In order to do so, a permit -writer must conduct a site -specific
analysis. The ability to conduct this site -specific analysis for multiple facilities in a general
permit may be prohibitively complex depending on the scope of the general permit. Thus, the
two examples provided by the Agency in encouraging use of general permits with WQBELs are
situations where the site -specific analysis is easily implemented: "where a general permit is
developed in close coordination with a total maximum daily load (TMDL) and/or a wasteload
allocation" and for facilities which "must meet water quality standards at the point of discharge"
due to prohibitions on mixing zones. 65 Fed. Reg. at 30890-91. In both of those situations, there
is likely not a need to conduct further site -specific analysis beyond identifying the applicable
WLA or WQS and incorporating that value as the WQBEL. The regulations are not so
constrained, however, as to prohibit a general permit from incorporating WQBELs where more
complex site -specific analysis is needed, so long as that site -specific analysis is conducted to
ensure the substantive, requisite environmental protection is achieved, and the requirements of
the Clean Water Act are met. While admittedly more complex than the examples provided, that
is exactly what EPA has accomplished with this General Permit. For each facility, EPA has
conducted site -specific analysis to ensure protective WQBELs where appropriate.
A contrary reading of the regulations to require identical, end -of -pipe WQBELs for each facility
covered under a general permit is form over substance, unnecessarily constraining the scope of
general permits based on a hyper -technical reading lacking a substantive, environmental
rationale. It also renders provisions relating to categorization and subcategorization superfluous.
The preamble to the final rule confirms that the "same effluent limitations" language and the
categorization provisions were intended to be applied in conjunction with one another. 65 Fed.
Reg. at 30890 (May 15, 2000). This General Permit appropriately implements this
subcategorization framework. Of the 44 facilities considered under this general permit, EPA has
identified the following subcategories: freshwater & marine dischargers (applying the same
criteria and methodology for metals, ammonia, and phosphorus within each subcategory); Long
14

Island Sound dischargers (ensuring all facilities in this subcategory have nitrogen limits based on
the same methodology); Dilution Factor subcategories between > 1 and < 20, > 20 and < 100,
and > 100 (establishing acute and/or chronic WET limits using the same methodology within
each subcategory); and lastly facilities that implement chlorine disinfection (ensuring all
facilities in this subcategory have TRC limits based on the same methodology).3 The identical
methodologies applied for each facility within a subcategory (using site -specific information for
each facility) to derive WQBEL pursuant to § 122.44 are clearly described in the relevant
sections of the Fact Sheet. EPA could have issued separate general permits for each subcategory
of facilities, but the intent of EPA's amendments to its general permit regulations was to allow
for one general permit to cover a broader group of sources (i.e., categories and subcategories)
and not necessitate multiple general permits. See 61 Fed. Reg at 65273.
In summary, this General Permit is consistent with EPA's general permit regulations both
because it appropriately implements site -specific WQBEL analysis where appropriate, thus
ensuring necessary water quality protection, and where disparate site -specific analyses were
required, those analyses are consistent and identical within their applicable subcategories.
s EPA recognizes that many facilities additionally have unique effluent limits in their existing individual permits and
the application of anti -backsliding regulations results in these unique limits being carried forward under the General
Permit. EPA views these anti -backsliding -based limits as being applied using the same methodology (i.e., anti -
backsliding) within this subcategory of facilities that have such limits. To assert that facilities with disparate permit
limitations due to anti -backsliding are ineligible for coverage under a general permit would be to assert, in effect,
that general permits may not be used for any facilities with existing individual permit coverage. EPA does not agree
that the scope of general permits was intended to be so limited and sees no environmental rationale for such
constraint. Indeed, where efficiency gains are a key rationale to the general permit regime, allowing for a transition
from multiple, existing individual permits to one general permit is the epitome of efficiency gains and thus squarely
within the intended scope of the general permit program.
15

Response 158
See Responses 52 and 107.
Comment 159
For Part II A.19. The ambient phosphorus monitoring program should occur on a regular
schedule and not be triggered antecedent precipitation conditions The Draft Permit's ambient
phosphorus monitoring program requires monthly sampling from May through September with a
72-hour antecedent precipitation requirement. This requirement is difficult to implement in
practice for a small WWTF that may have limited staff availability. The uncertain nature of
running a weather -driven monitoring program makes it impossible to plan in advance the
monitoring dates. Therefore, we request that EPA modify the proposed monitoring program to
require monthly monitoring on a pre -determined day E.g., second Tuesday of the month. Since
this program is anticipated to occur biannually for the length of the permit, it will collect
adequate data to characterize the upstream phosphorus concentrations, even if a subset of the
data happens to be collected on a wet weather day. This modification would allow Grafton and
other permittees to better plan for required monitoring during each month.
Response 159
See Response 52.
Comment 160
PFAS Monitoring Requirements Part III.C.3 requires annual sampling of discharges from
industrial discharges within the service area for the six identified PFAS compounds with results
to be submitted in annual report. If high concentrations are detected that exceed some pre-
determined level, is the permittee required to report this in a time frame other than annual
reporting? What is the permittees obligation beyond sampling and reporting, understanding that
currently IPP programs do not include PFAS?
Response 160
The General Permit does not require any additional reporting based on these results at
this time. However, permittees may incorporate requirements on industrial users through
regulatory mechanisms such as local limits, pretreatment programs, industrial discharge
permits, and/or sewer use ordinances. These requirements may include increased PFAS
monitoring, best management practices (BMPs), or local limits. Additionally,
municipalities may encourage pollution prevention, product substitution, and good
housekeeping practices to make meaningful reductions in PFAS releases to POTWs.
Please note that the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance
(hlt2s://www.mass.gov/environmental-assistance-services-for-businesses) offers free and
confidential services to businesses including pollution prevention recommendations.
Comment 161
Part II.B Other Requirements
Part II.B Other Requirements, subparagraph 1, states, "The discharge shall not cause a violation
of the water quality standards of the receiving water."
120

As required by the Clean Water Act, the permit writer has the burden to identify and apply
applicable regulations and incorporate all necessary and appropriate terms, conditions, and
limitations into the permit. Federal law requires that permitting agencies include limitations
necessary to meet applicable water quality standards (WQS), including numeric effluent limits
for any pollutant that has reasonable potential to cause a WQS violation. As such, we request that
this narrative language be deleted from the permit.
Similarly, subparagraphs II.B.2, 3, 4 and 5, contain ambiguous, boilerplate, narrative language
that opens the permittees up to lawsuits or enforcement actions, due to misunderstandings in the
statutory requirements. Therefore, we request that this narrative language also be deleted from
the permit.
Response 161
See Response 108 with regard to appropriateness of narrative permit terms.
With regard to the concerns of potential enforcement actions, EPA disagrees that the
narrative language is so vague as to cause "misunderstandings." First, all permittees have
been operating under a permit that contains some version of these narrative provisions .
See Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Fola Coal Co., LLC, 845 F.3d 133, 144 (4th Cir. 2017)
(finding that a permittee had fair notice of narrative water quality standards included in
its permit due in part to the amount of time the permittee was bound by that language).
The language in the permit clearly states what is required of the permittees, specifically
that they shall not discharge pollutants that "settle to form objectionable deposits; float as
debris, scum or other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable odor, color, taste
or turbidity; or produce undesirable or nuisance species of aquatic life;" "adversely affect
the physical or chemical nature of the bottom, interfere with the propagation of fish or
shellfish, or adversely affect populations of non -mobile or sessile benthic organisms." or
"result in pollutants in concentrations or combinations in the receiving water that are
toxic to humans, aquatic life or wildlife." These narrative standards, based directly on
Massachusetts water quality standards at 314 CMR 4.01-.06, are consistent with the
CWA and adequately puts the permittee on notice of its obligations. See Upper
Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement Dist. v. E.P.A., 690 F.3d 9, 33 (1st Cir. 2012)
("EPA regulations [at 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(d)(1)(i)] require permitting authorities to
include in NPDES permits conditions which `control all pollutants or pollutant
parameters ... [that] are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality
standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality."'). Commenter has not
provided any specific aspects of these provisions which it views as vague nor the source
of such ambiguity. Commenter appears more generally to object to incorporation of water
quality standards into permits as narrative terms, rather than numeric. As discussed in
Response 108, however, Courts have repeatedly upheld the use of such permit terms. See
also In re: City of Lowell, at 181-186.
Comment 162
PFAS monitoring requirements should be reduced.
The draft permit includes a requirement for quarterly PFAS monitoring. Given the relatively
small size of the facilities covered under the General Permit (Grafton has a design flow of 2.4
121

ATTACHMENT 12

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
Mr. Brian Long, Plant Manager
The Chemours Company
Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306
Dear Mr. Long:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
September 15, 2022
Subject: Final NPDES Permit
Permit NCO090042
Fayetteville Works
Bladen County
Facility Physical -Chemical Grade II
The Division of Water Resources is forwarding herewith the Final NPDES permit for the
Chemours Company. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
The final permit contains the following significant changes from your draft permit:
• The requirement for an operations and maintenance plan was expanded to include the
barrier wall. Please see page 5 of the permit.
• The initial limits for PFMOAA were reduced from 640 ng/L to 320 ng/L, and for PMPA
from 130 ng/L to 100 ng/L.
• After a 6-month optimization period, the limits for the 3 indicator parameters shall be
reduced to <10.0 ng/L for GenX, 10 ng/L for PMPA, and < 20.0 ng/L for PFMOAA
• Footnote 9 and 10 added to state when above limits are effective. Please see page 5 of the
permit.
• Footnote 3 was modified, see page 4 of the permit.
• Condition A.(6.) was revised to make the PQL for PMPA — 2 ng/L. Please see page 12 of
the permit.
• Reasons this pertnit can be re -opened have all been moved to condition A.(3.).
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707,9000

If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such
a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Resources or
any other Federal, State, or Local governmental regulations.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Sergei Chernikov, telephone
number [phone] or email: sersrei.chernikov(kncdenr.gov.
%Sincerely,
Richard E. Rogers, Jr.,
Division of Water Res
cc: Central Files
NPDES Files
Fayetteville Regional Office/Water Quality
WSS/Aquatic Toxicology Unit (e-copy)
EPA Region W (e-copy)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
D_E Q1� 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000
.w me,m,�man�i�

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
NPDES PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
is hereby authorized to discharge treated groundwater, treated filter backwash, treated stormwater, and
treated seep water from a facility located at
Chemours Company- Fayetteville Works
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville
Bladen County
to receiving waters designated as the Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, Part II, and Part III
hereof.
The permit shall become effective November 1, 2022.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2027.
Signed this day September 15, 2022.
Richard E. Rogers Jr., Director
Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental M /ement Commission

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NCO090042
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
is hereby authorized to:
Operate a 2.38 MGD wastewater treatment facilities consisting o£
• chemical oxidation/precipitation
• pH adjustment to precipitate metals
• ultrafiltration membranes to remove total suspended solids and other constituents
• granulated active carbon (GAC) system to remove PFAS compounds
• waste solids generation
• associated equipment
2. Discharge treated groundwater, treated filter backwash, treated stonnwater, and treated seep
water through Outfall 004 routed to Outfall 002 at the location specified on the attached map
into the Cape Fear River, a class C, WS-IV water in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 2 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Part I
Permit NCO090042
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - OUTFALL 004
[15A NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.] Facility Physical -Chemical Grade II
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
from Outfall 004 (treated groundwater, treated filter backwash, treated stormwater, and treated seep water).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
PARAMETER
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Average
Daily Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location
Flow 50050
2.38 MGD
T
Continuous
Recording
Effluent
Total Monthly Flow 82220
Monitor and Report (MG/mo)
Monthly
Recording
or
Calculation
Effluent
Temperature ('C) 00010
See Note 2
Weekly
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream,
Downstream
BOD, 5-day, 20'C C0310
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TSS C0530
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L.
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L 00300
Weekly
Grab
Upstream,
Downstream
HFPO-DA (GenX) 52612
0.120 µg/L'
0.120 µg/L'
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
HFPO-DA (GenX) 52612
<0.010 µg/L10
<0.010 µg/L10
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
HFPO-DA (GenX) 3 QM612
Monitor and Report (lb/mo)
Monthly
Calculation
Effluent
HFPO-DA (GenX)' QY612
Monitor and Report (lb/yr)
Annually
Calculation
Effluent
PFMOAA 52613
0.320 µg/L'
0.320 µg/L.'
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
PFMOAA 52613
<0.020 µg/L10
<0.020 µg/L10
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
PFMOAA3 QM613
Monitor and Report (lb/mo)
Monthly
Calculation
Effluent
PFMOAA' QY613
Monitor and Report (lb/yr)
Annually
Calculation
Effluent
PMPA 52620
0.100 µg/L'
0.100 µg/L'
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
PMPA 52620
0.010 µg/L10
0.010 µg/L10
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
PMPA3 QM620
Monitor and Report (lb/mo)
Monthly
Calculation
Effluent
PMPA3 QY620
Monitor and Report (lb/yr)
Annually
Calculation
Effluent
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 3 of30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
PARAMETER
EFFLUENT LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly Average
Daily Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location
PEAS compounds, ng/L
See A. (5.)
Grab
See A. (5.)
Total Organic Fluorine,
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
ng/L6
Total Phosphorus, mg/L C0665
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen, mg/L
C0600
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Conductivity 00094
Monthly
Grab
Upstream,
Downstream
Chronic Toxicity TGP3B
See Note 4
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
pH 00400
Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Silver'', µg/L 01077
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Cadmium', µg/L 01027
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Lead', µg/L 01051
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Thallium', µg/L 00982
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Hardnesss[as 00900
Quarterly
Composite
Upstream
CaCO31(mg/L)
Effluent
Notes:
1. Upstream monitoring shall be at the Permittee's river pump station; Downstream shall be approximately 6400
feet downstream of Outfall 002.
As a participant in the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association, the instream monitoring requirements for
conventional parameters (DO, temperature, conductivity, and hardness) as stated above are waived. This
waiver for instream monitoring does not apply to instream monitoring required in Special Condition A. (6.).
Should your membership in the agreement be terminated, you shall notify the Division immediately and the
instream monitoring requirements specified in your permit shall be reinstated.
Influent — influent to the Treatment System.
Effluent — effluent from the Treatment System.
2. The temperature of the effluent shall be such as not to cause an increase in the temperature of the receiving
stream of more than 2.8°C and in no case cause the ambient water temperature to exceed 32°C.
3. In addition to complying with the applicable effluent limits, the Permittee shall remove indicator parameters
HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA at an efficiency of at least 99%. The Permittee may request revision of the
99% removal efficiency requirement upon a demonstration that influent concentrations of PFAS have been
reduced to such a level that 99% removal is no longer technically feasible. Notwithstanding any such revision,
Chemours shall continue to operate the Treatment System at optimal efficiency.
4. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 12.5%; quarterly during February, May, August, November; see
condition A. (2.) of this permit.
5. The permittee shall sample instream hardness upstream of the facility's discharge. The sample shall be
representative of the hardness in the stream. If the permittee is a member of the Monitoring Coalition Program,
sampling for instream hardness may be waived as long as the Monitoring Coalition agrees to sample hardness at
the nearest upstream location, at a minimum frequency of quarterly, and the permittee has obtained approval from
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 4 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
DWR -NPDES Permitting Unit that the upstream station being monitored by the coalition is representative of the
receiving stream for this discharge. The permittee is responsible for submitting instream hardness test results with
its DMRs as results are received from the coalition. If coalition membership is cancelled or the Monitoring
Coalition terminates instream hardness sampling at the approved station, the permittee will immediately notify
the Division and resume sampling for instream hardness, upstream of its discharge, as required in Section A. (L).
6. Upon Notice from NCDEQ the facility shall commence monitoring Total Organic Fluorine using an NCDEQ
approved analytical test method.
7. Sufficiently sensitive test methods shall be used to analyze for silver. The Division shall consider all effluent
silver values reported below the PQL to be in compliance with the Monthly Average silver limit. As of the
effective date of this permit, DWR recommends a target PQL of 1.0 µg/L for silver.
8. After 12 months of sampling the facility can apply for a reduction in sampling if all the sampling results
demonstrate concentrations below detection levels. The facility shall be employing the sufficiently sensitive test
methods.
9. The limit is effective from day 1 through day 180 of discharge from Outfall 004 (approximately 6-months).
10. The limit becomes effective as of day 181 of discharge from Outfall 004 (after 6-month optimization period).
The facility shall complete and submit EPA Form 2C for this Outfall no later than 6 months from the effective date
of the permit.
The facility shall maintain at least a 2 ft. freeboard in the main surge pond, as provided in the Operations and
Maintenance Plan. The facility shall verify freeboard depth daily.
The facility shall submit a Sludge Management Plan, Operations and Maintenance Plan (including Barrier Wall
Maintenance) for all surge ponds within 60 days from the permit effective date.
The facility shall submit a closure plan 180 days prior to the decommissioning of the surge ponds.
The facility shall use stand-by power capability for all pumps and treatment plant equipment.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE AMOUNTS.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 5 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT P/F (QUARTERLY) — OUTFALL 004
[ 15A NCAC 02B.05001
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 12.5%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," (Revised December 2010, or subsequent versions) or
"North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised December 2010, or
subsequent versions). The tests will be performed during the months of February, May, August, and November.
These months signify the first month of each three-month toxicity testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent
sampling for this testing must be obtained during representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
following months as described in "North Carolina Phase H Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -December 2010, or subsequent versions).
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered electronically using the
Division's eDMR system for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWR Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Or, results can be sent to the email, ATForms.ATB(Rncdenr.gov.
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30 days after
the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the
facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow"
in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Water Sciences Section at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity testing quarter,
which is the three-month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which toxicity testing is required
by this permit and continues until the final day of the third month.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 6 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an
invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.
Sampling for the Whole Effluent Toxicity shall be conducted at the Outfall 002 sampling point.
A. (3.) RE -OPENER CONDITION
[NCGS 143-215.1, 15A NCAC 2H .0112 & .0114, and NCGS 143-215.66]
The Division may re-evaluate the performance of the facility after 12 months of operation and adjust the limits
accordingly. Other reasons the permit may be re -opened include:
a. This permit shall be modified or revoked and reissued to incorporate additional limitations and monitoring
requirements in the event toxicity testing or other studies indicate that detrimental effects may be expected as
a result of this discharge.
b. If EPA develops HAS criteria or the State adopts standards for any of the compounds generated by
Chemours, the Division will conduct a reasonable potential analysis and reopen the permit to include the new
limits, if they are more stringent than the TBELs.
c. This permit may be modified or revoked and reissued to incorporate more stringent PFAS limits if the
Division determines that the technology consistently achieves concentrations of the indicator PFAS that are
lower than the limits established in this permit.
d. If it is found that another PFAS breaks through more quickly than the indicator parameters GenX, PFMOAA,
and PMPA, this permit may be modified, or revoked and reissued to incorporate a limit for that PFAS.
A. (4.) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF MONITORING REPORTS
[G.S.143-215.1(b)]
Federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and program reports.
The final NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was adopted and became effective on December 21, 2015.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this permit
(Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.) Signatory Requirements
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D. (6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Reporting
Records Retention
Monitoring Reports
1. Reportine Requirements [Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (all
The permittee shall report discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and submitted
electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter monitoring data and submit
DMRs electronically using the internet. The eDMR system may be accessed at:
https:Hdeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 7 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility being
physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband access, then a
temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted and discharge monitoring
data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR I, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the Director.
Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the following address:
NC DEQ / Division of Water Resources / Water Quality Permitting Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
See "How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting" section below
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance
of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of
discharge.
Starting on December 21, 2025, the permittee must electronically report the following compliance monitoring
data and reports, when applicable:
Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Reports;
Pretreatment Program Annual Reports; and
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) Annual Reports.
The permittee may seek an electronic reporting waiver from the Division (see "How to Request a Waiver from
Electronic Reporting" section below).
2. Electronic Submissions
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(I)(9), the permittee must identify the initial recipient at the time of each
electronic submission. The permittee should use the EPA's website resources to identify the initial recipient for
the electronic submission.
Initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities means the entity (EPA or the
state authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program) that is the designated entity for receiving electronic
NPDES data [see 40 CFR 127.2(b)].
EPA plans to establish a website that will also link to the appropriate electronic reporting tool for each type of
electronic submission and for each state. Instructions on how to access and use the appropriate electronic
reporting tool will be available as well. Information on EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule is found at:
https://www.federalregister. gov/documents/2015/ 10/22/2015-24954/national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-
s sty-npdes-electronic-reportin -rule
Electronic submissions must start by the dates listed in the "Reporting Requirements" section above.
3. How to Request a Waiver from Electronic Reporting
The permittee may seek a temporary electronic reporting waiver from the Division. To obtain an electronic
reporting waiver, a permittee must fast submit an electronic reporting waiver request to the Division. Requests
for temporary electronic reporting waivers must be submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at
least sixty (60) days prior to the date the facility would be required under this permit to begin submitting
monitoring data and reports. The duration of a temporary waiver shall not exceed 5 years and shall thereupon
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 8 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
expire. At such time, monitoring data and reports shall be submitted electronically to the Division unless the
permittee re -applies for and is granted a new temporary electronic reporting waiver by the Division. Approved
electronic reporting waivers are not transferrable. Only permittees with an approved reporting waiver request
may submit monitoring data and reports on paper to the Division for the period that the approved reporting
waiver request is effective.
Information on eDMR and the application for a temporary electronic reporting waiver are found on the
following web page:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
4. Signatory Rea uirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and Supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)l
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part 11, Section B.
(I I.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II, Section B. (I 1.)(b). A
person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user account and
login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North Carolina's eDMR system,
registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the following web page:
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make the
following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE
ACCEPTED:
V certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or
those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility offines and imprisonment for knowing violations. "
5. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)l
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR submissions. These
records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the report. This period
may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR 122.41 ].
A. (5.) PFAS MONITORING REQUREMENTS
[NCGS 143-215.3 (a) (2) and NCGS 143-215.66]
The permittee shall monitor for PFAS compounds at the monitoring frequencies described below. The lists of
compounds follow. Note that not all required compounds have eDMR parameter codes. Those with parameter codes
should be reported using the applicable codes, and all other results for PFAS compounds should be reported in the
comment section of the eDMR or added as supplemental information. In addition, a complete copy of all PFAS
sampling results shall be submitted to NPDES Permitting via email at svc deg _npdes-ec( ncdenr.gov, with the
Facility permit number and name in the Subject heading.
The Permittee shall use the following analytical methods when testing for the PFAS compounds.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 9 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
Method description: Approved methods and SOPS referred to as "EPA 537 Modified" and "Table 3" shall be used
as described in supporting material and approved by DEQ Division of Waste Management in a letter dated May 8th
2019. For this permit, Eurofins Lancaster and Eurofins Test America shall use these same approved methods and
update all method revisions with the referenced methods for consistency across all work projects for Chemours
Company Fayetteville Works.
Upon EPA approval of method 1633 and notification by DEQ the facility shall employ this analysis for PFAS
compounds covered under this method. The conversion to the new method shall be achieved within 60 days. The
facility shall continue to employ method 537 Modified for parameters that will not be covered by method 1633.
Monitoring Locations and Freouencv
Location
Compounds
Frequency
Influent to the Treatment System
Table 3+ Lab SOP
Monthly
Full suite
Quarterly
Effluent from the Treatment
System
Table 3+ Lab SOP
Monthly
Full suite
Quarterly
PFAS Compounds: Full Suite / Method 537 Modified Compounds:
Analytical
Common
Chemical Name
CASN
Chemical Formula
Paramete
Method
Name
r code
HFPO-DA
Hexafluoropropylene oxide
13252-13-6
C6HF1103
52612
dimer acid
PEPA
Perlfuoroethoxypropyl
26729-61-2
C5HF903
52618
carboxylic acid
PFECA-G
Perfluoro-4-
801212-59-9
C121-1917903S
52619
iso ro ox butanoic acid
PFMOAA
Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic
674-13-5
C31-117503
52613
acid
PF02HxA
Perfluoro(3,5-dioxahexanoic)
39492-88-1
C41-11`704
52617
acid
PF030A
Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic)
39492-89-2
C5HF905
52616
acid
Table 3+
PF04DA
Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-
39492-90-5
C6HF1106
52615
Lab
tetraoxadecanoic acid
SOP
PMPA
Perfluoromethoxypropyl
13140-29-9
C41-IF703
52620
carbox lic acid
Hydro -EVE
Perfluoroethoxypropanoic acid
773804-62-9
C81-12F1404
52621
Acid
EVE Acid
Perfluoroethox ro ionic acid
69087-46-3
C81-1171304
52622
PFECA-B
Perfluoror-3,6-dioxaheptanoic
151772-58-6
C5HF904
52626
acid
R-EVE
R-EVE
N/A
C81-12171205
52640
PF05DA
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,1 I -
39492-91-6
C7HF13C7
52627
entaoxadodecanoic acid
Byproduct 4
Byproduct 4
N/A
C7H2F1206S
52643
Byproduct 5
Byproduct 5
N/A
C71131`1107S 152644
B roduct 6
B roduct 6
N/A I
C6H2171204S 152645
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 10 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
NVHOS
Perfluoroethoxysulfonic acid
1132933-86-
86-8
C41421`8O4S
52628
PES
Perfluoroethoxyethanesulfonic
acid
113507-82-7
C4HF9O4S
52629
PFESA-BP1
Byproduct 1
29311-67-9
C7HF13O5S
52630
PFESA-BP2
Byproduct 2
749836-20-2
C7H2F14O5S
52614
PFBA
Perfluorobutanoic acid
375-22-4
C41I1`7O2
51522
PFDA
Perfluorodecanoic acid
335-76-2
CIOHF19O2
51627
PFDoA
Perfluorododecanoic acid
307-55-1
C 12HF23O2
51629
PFH A
Perfluorohe tanoic acid
375-85-9
C7HF13O2
51625
PFNA
Perfluorononanoic acid
375-95-1
C9HF1702
51626
PFOA
Perfluorooctanoic acid
335-67-1
C8HF15O
51521
PFHxA
Perfluorobexanoic acid
307-24-4
C6HF11O2
51624
PFPeA
Perfluoro entanoic acid
2706-90-3
C5HF9O2
51623
PFTeA
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid
376-06-7
C14HF27O2
51531
PFTriA
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
72629-94-8
C13EF25O2
51630
PFUnA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid
2058-94-8
C11HF21O2
51628
PFBS
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
375-73-5
C4111`9SO
52602
PFDS
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid
335-77-3
ClOBF21O3S
52603
PFH S
Perfluorohe tanesulfonic acid
375-92-8
C7HF15O3S
52604
PFHxS
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
355-46-4
C6HF13SO3
52605
PFNS
Perfluorononanesulfonic acid
68259-12-1
C9HF19O3S
52611
PFOS
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
1763-23-1
C8HF17SO3
52606
EPA
PFPeS
Perfluoro entanesulfonic acid
2706-91-4
C5HFl lO3S
52610
Method
10:2 FTS
10:2 fluorotelomersulfonic
acid
120226-60-0
C12H51721O3
52631
537 Mod
4:2 FTS
4:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
757124-72-4
C6H5179O3S
52607
6:2 FTS
6:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
27619-97-2
C8H5F13SO3
52608
8:2 FTS
8:2 fluorotelomersulfonic acid
39108-34-4
C101-15F17O3S
52609
NEtFOSAA
NEtFOSAA
2991-50-6
C12H8F17NO4S
51643
NEtPFOSA
NEtPFOSA
4151-50-2
C10H6F17NO2S
52642
NEtPFOSAE
NEtPFOSAE
1691-99-2
C121-1101717NO3S
51641
NMeFOSAA
NMeFOSAA
2355-31-9
CllH6F17NO4S
51644
NMePFOSA
NMePFOSA
31506-32-8
C9H4F17NO2S
52641
NMePFOSAE
NMePFOSAE
24448-09-7
CllH8F17NO3S
51642
PFDOS
Perfluorododecanesulfonic
acid
79780-39-5
C12BF25O3S
52632
PFHxDA
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid
67905-19-5
C1611F31O2
52633
PFODA
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid
16517-11-6
C18HF35O2
52634
PFESA
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
754-91-6
C8H2F17NO2S
51525
F-53B Major
F-53B Major
73606-19-6
C8HCIF16O4S
52638
F-53B Minor
F-53B Minor
83329-89-9
CIOHCIF20O4S
52639
DONA
4,8-Dioxa-3H-
erfluorononanoic acid
919005-14-4
C71-12F12O4
52636
A. (6.) CALCULATION OF HFPO-DA, PMPA, & PFMOAA REMOVAL/LOADS
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly removal efficiency for HFPO-DA, PMPA, and PFMOAA as follows:
%Removal = Influent -Effluent *100
Influent
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 11 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NCO090042
Where:
Influent = monthly average influent concentration
Effluent = monthly average effluent concentration
b. The Permittee shall calculate monthly load for HFPO-DA, PMPA, and PFMOAA as follows:
Monthly C Load = C x TMF x 8.34
Where:
C = monthly average effluent concentration for each compound (mg/L)
TMF = Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the month (MG/month)
8.34 = conversion factor from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
Annual C Load = Sum of the 12 Monthly Loads for each compound for the calendar year
c. The Permittee shall report monthly HFPO-DA, PMPA, and PFMOAA results [% removal (ng/L), and loading
(pounds/month)] in the discharge monitoring report for each month and shall report each calendar year's Annual Load
(pounds/year) with the December report for that year. Percent removal shall be listed in the comment section of the
eDMR since it has no parameter code.
This percent removal will be reported monthly with Chemours electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR)
data. If the influent HFPO-DA, PMPA, or PFMOAA concentrations to the water treatment system are equal to or
less than 200 ng/L, 1,000 ng/L, and 500 ng/L, respectively, then the water treatment system effluent concentrations
of less than the current reporting limits (2 ng/L, 2 ng/L, and 5 ng/L, respectively) shall be considered as achieving
99% removal.
A. (7.) PFAS SPECIAL MONITORING REQUREMENTS
In addition, to the monitoring specified previously the site operator / owner shall commence the following water
quality monitoring and sampling regiment within 60 days of approval of the Permit. The monitoring and sampling
shall be to the standards provided in Section A. (5.) PFAS Monitoring Requirements noted previously herein. This
regiment shall continue until the NCDEQ approves a reduction.
Samples shall be collected at the following four transects (comprising 12 sampling stations) along the Cape Fear
River as depicted in Exhibits IA (Facility Vicinity Maps), 113 (Overview Chemours Intake and Outfall Map) and 1C
(Chemours Cape Fear River Water Quality Monitoring Sampling Points) herein.
o Transect 1 (34°51'07.80"N, 78°49'36.12"W): stations 101, 102, and 103 from west to east so station
101 is near Chemours's riverbank, station 102 in the river center, and station 103 towards the
eastern riverbank (above Willis Creek)
o Transect 2 (34°50'40.54"N, 78°49'27.10"W): stations 201, 202, and 203 from west to east.
o Transect 3 (34°50'07.23"N, 78°49'22.99"W): stations 301, 302, and 303 from west to east.
(Between the William O Huske Dam and Outfall 002)
o Transect 4 (34°48' 19.32"N, 78°49' 13.94"W): Stations 401, 402, and 403 from west to east. (Outfall
003 downstream sampling point).
All sampling points are evenly spaced at''/4,'/2 and of the distance across the river. Samples should be obtained as
grab at %2 the depth between the river surface to the bottom (according to the depth at each sampling point). All
transects should be sampled within the same 48-to-72-hour period, weather permitting.
Sampling shall be performed beginning within sixty (60) days of Permit issuance until six (6) months following final
completion of construction of the barrier wall as determined by the NCDEQ. During this time period the following
parameters and sampling frequency shall be implemented:
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 12 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NC0090042
Temperature (monthly)
Dissolved Oxygen (monthly)
pH (monthly)
Turbidity (monthly)
HFPO-DA (GenX) (monthly)
PFMOAA (monthly)
PMPA (monthly)
PFAS compounds (Table 3+ SOP) (Quarterly sampling)
Six (6) months following the completion of the barrier wall sampling shall be continued for all of the above
parameters on a quarterly basis.
Sampling results and summary of findings, including sampling at the Tar Hill Ferry Bridge shall be submitted
monthly on the DMRs and annually in the form of a report. Report should include graphs depicting concentration
trends for 3 indicator parameters. Copies of all reports shall be submitted to:
1) Electronic Version Only (pdf) [e-mail]
2) Electronic Version Only (pdf) [e-mail]
3) Electronic Version Only (pdf) [e-mail]
Specified water quality monitoring and sampling locations noted below are reflected in Exhibits 1B and IC herein.
o Transect 1 (34°51'07.80"N, 78049'36.12"W): stations 101, 102, and 103 (above Willis Creek).
o Transect 2 (34°50'40.54"N, 78049'27.10"W): stations 201, 202, and 203.
o Transect 3 (34°50'07.23"N, 78049'22.99"W): stations 301, 302, and 303 (between William O Huske
Dam and Outfall 002).
o Transect 4 (34048' 19.32"N, 78°49' 13.94"W): Stations 401, 402, and 403 (Outfall 003 downstream
sampling point).
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 13 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NCO090042
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 14 of 30

0
wwlp
s CGeek Connectwn
c;nomours Rver Intake Srte
Cape Feat R,.e+
Disehaige Point
;Cp'o. 1 $60 fool
N

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NCO090042
Exhibit IC Chemours Cape Fear River Water Quality Monitoring Sampling Points
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 16 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
Section A. Definitions
2/Month
Samples are collected twice per month with at least ten calendar days between sampling events. These samples shall
be representative of the wastewater discharged during the sample period.
3/Week
Samples are collected three times per week on three separate calendar days. These samples shall be representative
of the wastewater discharged during the sample period.
Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, 33 USC 1251,
et. seq.
Annual Average
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar year. In the case of fecal
coliform, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Arithmetic Mean
The summation of the individual values divided by the number of individual values.
Bypass
The known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility including the collection system,
which is not a designed or established or operating mode for the facility.
Calendar Day
The period from midnight of one day until midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of this permit, any
consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
Calendar Week
The period from Sunday through the following Saturday.
Calendar Ouarter
One of the following distinct periods: January through March, April through June, July through September, and
October through December.
Composite Sample
A sample collected over a 24-hour period by continuous sampling or combining grab samples of at least 100 mL in
such a manner as to result in a total sample representative of the wastewater discharge during the sample period.
The Director may designate the most appropriate method (specific number and size of aliquots necessary, the time
interval between grab samples, etc.) on a case -by -case basis. Samples may be collected manually or automatically.
Composite samples may be obtained by the following methods:
(1) Continuous: a single, continuous sample collected over a 24-hour period proportional to the rate of flow.
(2) Constant time/variable volume: a series of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour
period of discharge and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of individual sample
collection, or
(3) Variable time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period
with the time intervals between samples determined by a preset number of gallons passing the sampling
point. Flow measurement between sample intervals shall be determined by use of a flow recorder and
totalizer, and the preset gallon interval between sample collection fixed at no greater than 1/24 of the
expected total daily flow at the treatment system, or
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 17 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NC0090042
(4) Constant time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24-hour period at
a constant time interval. Use of this method requires prior approval by the Director. This method may only
be used in situations where effluent flow rates vary less than 15 percent. The following restrictions also
apply:
➢ Influent and effluent grab samples shall be of equal size and of no less than 100 milliliters
➢ Influent samples shall not be collected more than once per hour.
➢ Permittees with wastewater treatment systems whose detention time < 24 hours shall collect effluent grab
samples at intervals of no greater than 20 minutes apart during any 24-hour period.
➢ Permittees with wastewater treatment systems whose detention time exceeds 24 hours shall collect effluent
grab samples at least every six hours; there must be a minimum of four samples during a 24-hour sampling
period.
Continuous flow measurement
Flow monitoring that occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility. Flow shall be
monitored continually except for the infrequent times when there may be no flow or for infrequent maintenance
activities on the flow device.
Daily Discharge
The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants measured in units of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated
as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants expressed in other units of measurement,
the "daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. (40 CFR 122.2; see
also "Composite Sample," above.)
Daily Maximum
The highest "daily discharge" during the calendar month.
Daily Sampling
Parameters requiring daily sampling shall be sampled 5 out of every 7 days per week unless otherwise specified in
the permit. Sampling shall be conducted on weekdays except where holidays or other disruptions of normal
operations prevent weekday sampling. If sampling is required for all seven days of the week for any permit
parameter(s), that requirement will be so noted on the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Page(s).
DWO or "the Division"
The Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Effluent
Wastewater discharged following all treatment processes from a water pollution control facility or other point
source whether treated or untreated.
EMC
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPA
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
Facility Closure
Cessation of all activities that require coverage under this NPDES permit. Completion of facility closure will allow
this permit to be rescinded.
Geometric Mean
The Nth root of the product of the individual values where N = the number of individual values. For purposes of
calculating the geometric mean, values of "0" (or "< [detection level)") shall be considered = 1.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 18 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
Grab Sample
Individual samples of at least 100 ml, collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes. Grab samples can
be collected manually. Grab samples must be representative of the discharge (or the receiving stream, for instream
samples).
Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the CWA.
Instantaneous flow measurement
The flow measured during the minimum time required for the flow measuring device or method to produce a result
in that instance. To the extent practical, instantaneous flow measurements coincide with the collection of any grab
samples required for the same sampling period so that together the samples and flow are representative of the
discharge during that sampling period.
Monthly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar month. In the case of fecal
coliform or other bacterial parameters or indicators, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Permit Issuing Authority
The Director of the Division of Water Quality.
Quarterly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all samples taken over a calendar quarter.
Severe pro eegy damage
Substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become
inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the
absence of a bypass. Severe property damage excludes economic loss caused by delays in production.
Toxic Pollutant:
Any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the CWA.
Upset
An incident beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee causing unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with permit effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements. An upset does not include noncompliance caused
by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
Weekly Average (concentration limit)
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant measured during the calendar week. In the case of fecal
coliform or other bacterial parameters or indicators, the geometric mean of such discharges.
Section B. General Conditions
1. Duty to Comply
The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the CWA and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or denial of a permit renewal application [40 CFR 122.411.
a. The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section 307(a) of the
CWA for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under section
405(d) of the CWA within the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions
or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate
the requirement.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 19 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NCO090042
b. The CWA provides that any person who violates section[s] 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act,
or any permit condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a permit issued under section 402,
or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of
the Act, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $37,500 per day for each violation. [33 USC 1319(d) and
40 CFR
122.41(a)(2)]
c. The CWA provides that any person who negligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405
of the Act, or any condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section
402 of the Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a
negligent violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both. [33 USC 1319(c)(1) and 40 CFR
122.41(a)(2)]
d. Any person who knowingly violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminal
penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. In
the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal
penalties of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both.
[33 USC 1319(c)(2) and 40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
e. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any
permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act, and who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or
imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a
knowing endangerment violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or by
imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or both. An organization, as defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of
the CWA, shall, upon conviction of violating the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of not
more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to
$2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. [40 CFR 122.41(a)(2)]
f. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per violation may be assessed against any person
who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terns, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [North
Carolina General Statutes § 143-215.6A]
g. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such
sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act. Administrative penalties for Class I violations are
not to exceed $16,000 per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to
exceed $37,500. Penalties for Class II violations are not to exceed $16,000 per day for each day during
which the violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $177,500.
[33 USC 1319(g)(2) and 40 CFR 122.4l(a)(3)]
2. Duty to Mitigate
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in
violation of this permit with a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment [40
CFR 122.41(d)].
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on 'Bypassing" (Part II.C.4), "Upsets" (Part II.C.5) and 'Power Failures"
(Part II.C.7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities,
or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3, 143-215.6 or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33
USC 1319. Furthermore, the Permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though
the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 20 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS
143215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Act, 33 USG 1321. Furthermore, the Permittee is responsible for
consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be
temporarily suspended.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any
exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations [40 CFR 122.41(g)].
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical structures or
facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
7. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of
this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby [NCGS 15013-23].
8. Duty to Provide Information
The Permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any information which the
Permit Issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Permit
Issuing Authority upon request, copies of records required by this permit [40 CFR 122.41(h)].
9. Duty to ReWlly
If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the
Permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit [40 CFR 122.41(b)].
10. Expiration of Permit
The Permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive automatic authorization
to discharge beyond the expiration date, the Permittee shall submit such information, forms, and fees as are
required by the agency authorized to issue permits no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date unless
permission for a later date has been granted by the Director. (The Director shall not grant permission for
applications to be submitted later than the expiration date of the existing permit.) [40 CFR 122.2l (d)] Any
Permittee that has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, or any Permittee that does not have
a permit after the expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will subject the
Permittee to enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33 USC 1251 et. seq.
11. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed and certified
[40 CFR 122.41(k)].
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, a responsible
corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision
making functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern
the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major
capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to
assure long term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can
ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate
information for permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures .
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 21 of30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NCO090042
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official [40 CFR 122.22].
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Permit Issuing Authority shall be
signed by a person described in paragraph a. above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A
person is a duly authorized representative only if
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well
or well field, superintendent, a position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having
overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative
may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.22]
c. Changes to authorization: If an authorization under paragraph (b) of this section is no longer accurate
because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Director
prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized
representative [40 CFR
122.22]
d. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the
following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION WILL BE
ACCEPTED:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties
for submittingfalse information, including the possibility offines and imprisonmentfor knowing
violations. "
12. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the
Permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition [40 CFR 122.41(f)].
13. Permit Modification. Revocation and Reissuance. or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening and modifying the
permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and
regulations contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 02H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143.215.1 et. al.
14. Annual Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee Requirements
The Permittee must pay the annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within thirty days after being
billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H
.0105(b)(2) may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit.
Section C. Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
1. Certified O erator
Owners of classified water pollution control systems must designate operators, certified by the Water Pollution
Control System Operators Certification Commission (WPCSOCC), of the appropriate type and grade for the
system, and, for each classification must [T15A NCAC 08G .0201]:
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 22 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
a. designate one Operator In Responsible Charge (ORC) who possesses a valid certificate of the type and
grade at least equivalent to the type and grade of the system;
b. designate one or more Back-up Operator(s) in Responsible Charge (Back-up ORCs) who possesses a valid
certificate of the type of the system and no more than one grade less than the grade of the system, with the
exception of no backup operator in responsible charge is required for systems whose minimum visitation
requirements are twice per year; and
c. submit a signed completed "Water Pollution Control System Operator Designation Form" to the
Commission (or to the local health department for owners of subsurface systems) countersigned by the
designated certified operators, designating the Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) and the Back-up
Operator in Responsible Charge (Back-up ORC):
(1) 60 calendar days prior to wastewater or residuals being introduced into a new system; or
(2) within 120 calendar days following:
➢ receiving notification of a change in the classification of the system requiring the designation of a
new Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) and Back-up Operator in Responsible Charge (Back-up
ORC) of the proper type and grade; or
➢ a vacancy in the position of Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) or Back-up Operator in
Responsible Charge (Back-up ORC).
(3) within seven calendar days of vacancies in both ORC and Back-up ORC positions replacing or
designating at least one of the responsibilities.
The ORC of each Class I facility (or the Back-up ORC, when acting as surrogate for the ORC) must:
➢ Visit the facility as often as is necessary to insure proper operation of the treatment system; the
treatment facility must be visited at least weekly
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 08G .0204.
The ORC of each Class II, Ill and IV facility (or the Back-up ORC, when acting as surrogate for the ORC)
must:
➢ Visit the facility as often as is necessary to insure proper operation of the treatment system; the
treatment facility must be visited at least five days per week, excluding holidays
➢ Properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility
➢ Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 08G .0204.
2. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control
(and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and
appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the Permittee to install and operate backup or
auxiliary facilities only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit [40 CFR
122.41(e)].
NOTE: Properly and officially designated operators are fully responsible for all proper operation and
maintenance of the facility, and all documentation required thereof, whether acting as a contract operator
[subcontractor] or a member of the Permittee's staff.
3. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the condition of this permit [40 CFR
122.41(c)].
4. Bypassing of Treatment Facilities
a. Bypass not exceeding limitations [40 CFR 122.41(m)(2)]
The Permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but
only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs b. and c. of this section.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 23 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
b. Notice [40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)]
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior
notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass; including an evaluation of the
anticipated quality and effect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part
II.E.6. (24-hour notice).
c. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass from the treatment facility is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for bypass, unless:
(A) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage;
(B) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(C) The Permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph b. of this section.
(2) Bypass from the collection system is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a Permittee for a bypass as provided in any current or future system -wide collection
system permit associated with the treatment facility.
(3) The Permit Issuing Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects,
if the Permit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in
Paragraph c.
(1) of this section.
5. Upsets
a. Effect of an upset [40 CFR 122.41(n)(2)]: An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought
for noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph
b. of this condition are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action
subject to judicial review.
b. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset: Any Permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other
relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The Permittee facility was at the time being properly operated; and
(3) The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II.E.6.(b) of this permit.
(4) The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part ILB.2. of this permit.
c. Burden of proof [40 CFR 122.41(n)(4)1: The Permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has
the burden of proof in any enforcement proceeding.
6. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters
shall be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1 and in a manner such as to prevent any
pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable waters of the United States except as
permitted by the Commission. The Permittee shall comply with all applicable state and Federal regulations
governing the disposal of sewage sludge, including 40 CFR 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage
Sludge; 40 CFR Part 258, Criteria For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and 15A NCAC Subchapter 2T, Waste
Not Discharged To Surface Waters. The Pennittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any significant
change in its sludge use or disposal practices.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 24 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NC0090042
Power Failures
Refer to footnote number 12 within section A. (L)Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements — Outfall
004 for specific requirements.
Section D. Monitorine and Records 1.
1. Representative Sampling
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be representative of the permitted discharge.
Samples collected at a frequency less than daily shall be taken on a day and time that is representative of the
discharge for the period the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this
permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other wastestream, body of
water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the Permit
Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.410)].
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and reported on a
monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form (MR 1, 1. 1, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the
Director, postmarked no later than the last calendar day of the month following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new
facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Duplicate signed copies of these,
and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
3. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific practices shall be selected
and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent
with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a
maximum deviation of less than 10% from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge
volumes. Flow measurement devices shall be accurately calibrated at a minimum of once per year and maintained
to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device.
The Director shall approve the flow measurement device and monitoring location prior to installation.
Once -through condenser cooling water flow monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part I
of this permit and based on the manufacturer's pump curves shall not be subject to this requirement.
4. Test Procedures
Laboratories used for sample analysis must be certified by the Division. Permittees should contact the Division's
Laboratory Certification Section (919 733-3908 or http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/lab/cert) for information
regarding laboratory certifications.
Facilities whose personnel are conducting testing of field -certified parameters only must hold the appropriate field
parameter laboratory certifications.
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations (published pursuant to NCGS
143-215.63 et. seq.), the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to Section
304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the CWA (as amended), and 40 CFR 136; or in the case of sludge use or disposal,
approved under 40 CFR 136, unless otherwise specified in 40 CFR 503, unless other test procedures have been
specified in this permit [40 CFR 122.41].
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 25 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NCO090042
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must produce minimum detection
and reporting levels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be reported
down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure. If no approved methods are determined
capable of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements, then the most
sensitive (method with the lowest possible detection and reporting level) approved method must be used.
5. Penalties for Tampering
The C WA provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring
device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years,
or both [40 CFR 122.41].
6. Records Retention
Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the Permittee's sewage sludge use
and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR
503), the Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including:
➢ all calibration and maintenance records
➢ all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation
➢ copies of all reports required by this permit
➢ copies of all data used to complete the application for this permit
These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
122.41].
7. Recording Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the Permittee shall record the
following information [40 CFR 122.41]:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Inspection and Entry
The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an authorized contractor
acting as a representative of the Director), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be
required by law, to;
a. Enter, at reasonable times, upon the Permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or
conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment),
practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the CWA, any substances or parameters at any location [40 CFR 122.41(i)].
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 26 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NC0090042
Section E. Reporting Requirements
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of
any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall
constitute a violation of the permit.
2. Planned Changes
The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions
to the permitted facility [40 CFR 122.41(1)]. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for new sources at 40 CFR
122.29(b); or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged.
This notification applies to pollutants subject neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification
requirements under 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1); or
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the Permittee's sludge use or disposal practices, and
such alteration, addition or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or
absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the
permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes to the permitted facility or other
activities that might result in noncompliance with the permit [40 CFR 122.41(1)(2)].
4. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person without prior written notice to and approval from the Director in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.61. The Director may condition approval in accordance with NCGS 143-215.1, in
particular NCGS 143-215.1(b)(4)b.2., and may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit,
or a minor modification, to identify the new permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be
necessary under the CWA [40 CFR 122.41(l)(3), 122.61] or state statute.
5. Monitoring Reports
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)].
a. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) (See Part II.D.2) or forms
provided by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices.
b. If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR Part 136 and at a sampling location specified in this permit or other appropriate
instrument governing the discharge, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and
reporting of the data submitted on the DMR.
6. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. The Permittee shall report to the Director or the appropriate Regional Office any noncompliance that
potentially threatens public health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24
hours from the time the Permittee became aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the noncompliance, and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact
dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to
continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance [40
CFR 122.41(1)(6)].
b. The Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis for reports under this section if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours.
c. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be reported to the Division's Emergency Response
personnel at [phone], [phone] or [phone].
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 27 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004 Permit NC0090042
7.Other Noncompliance
The Permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Part II.E.5 and 6. of this permit at
the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part II.E.6. of this
permit [40 CFR 122.41(1)(7)].
8.Other Information
Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or
information [40 CFR 122.41(1)(8)].
9. Noncompliance Notification
The Permittee shall report by telephone to either the central office or the appropriate regional office of the
Division as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next working day following the
occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following:
a. Any occurrence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of significant amounts of
wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of a sludge
digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual
circumstances.
b. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility incapable of adequate
wastewater treatment such as mechanical or electrical failures of pumps, aerators, compressors, etc.
c. Any failure of a pumping station, sewer line, or treatment facility resulting in a by-pass without treatment of
all or any portion of the influent to such station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report within 5 days following first
knowledge of the occurrence. Also see reporting requirements for municipalities in Part IV.C.2.c. of this
permit.
10. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3 (a)(2) or Section 308 of the Federal Act,
33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms shall be available for public inspection at the
offices of the Division. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly
making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for
in NCGS 143215.l(b)(2) or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
11. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in
any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring
reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$25,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both [40 CFR
122.41].
12. Annual Performance Reports
Permittees who own or operate facilities that collect or treat municipal or domestic waste shall provide an
annual report to the Permit Issuing Authority and to the users/customers served by the Permittee (NCGS 143-
215.1 C). The report shall summarize the performance of the collection or treatment system, as well as the extent
to which the facility was compliant with applicable Federal or State laws, regulations and rules pertaining to
water quality. The report shall be provided no later than sixty days after the end of the calendar or fiscal year,
depending upon which annual period is used for evaluation.
The report shall be sent to:
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 28 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
PART III OTHER
REQUIREMENTS
Section A. Construction
a. The Permittee shall not commence construction of wastewater treatment facilities, nor add to the plant's
treatment capacity, nor change the treatment process(es) utilized at the treatment plant unless (1) the Division
has issued an Authorization to Construct (AtC) permit or (2) the Permittee is exempted from such AtC permit
requirements under Item b. of this Section.
b. In accordance with NCGS 143-215.1(a5) [SL 2011-394], no permit shall be required to enter into a contract for
the construction, installation, or alteration of any treatment work or disposal system or to construct, install, or
alter any treatment works or disposal system within the State when the system's or work's principle function is
to conduct, treat, equalize, neutralize, stabilize, recycle, or dispose of industrial waste or sewage from an
industrial facility and the discharge of the industrial waste or sewage is authorized under a permit issued for the
discharge of the industrial waste or sewage into the waters of the State. Notwithstanding the above, the permit
issued for the discharge may be modified if required by federal regulation.
c. Issuance of an AtC will not occur until Final Plans and Specifications for the proposed construction have been
submitted by the Permittee and approved by the Division.
Section B. Groundwater Monitoring
The Permittee shall, upon written notice from the Director, conduct groundwater monitoring as may be required to
determine the compliance of this NPDES permitted facility with the current groundwater standards.
Section C. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe (40 CFR
122.42):
a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis,
of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the
following
"notification levels";
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 µg/L);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 µg/L) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per
liter (500 µg/L) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter (1
mg/L) for antimony;
(3) Five times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non -routine or infrequent
basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the
following "notification levels';
(1) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 µg/L);
(2) One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
(3) Ten times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application.
Section D. Facility Closure Requirements
The Permittee must notify the Division at least 90 days prior to the closure of any wastewater treatment system
covered by this permit. The Division may require specific measures during deactivation of the system to prevent
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 29 of 30

Chemours Fayetteville 004
Permit NCO090042
adverse impacts to waters of the State. This permit cannot be rescinded while any activities requiring this permit
continue at the permitted facility.
Revised 9/15/2022 Page 30 of 30

ATTACHMENT 13

Permit Number NCO090042
Fact Sheet
NPDES Pennit No. NCO090042
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Sergei Chemikov, Ph.D., sergei.chemikov&cdem.gov
Date: The Fact Sheet was initiated on April 27, 2020. The Final Fact Sheet was finalized on September 14,
2022. Text based on the draft permit appears in blue, revisions me in red
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources / NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
❑ Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
® New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2vd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
The Chemours Company / Chemours Fayetteville Works
Applicant Address:
1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19899
Facility Address:
22828 NC Highway 87 W, Fayetteville, NC 28306-7332
Permitted Flow:
2.38 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
MAJOR Industrial
Facility Class:
III
Treatment Units:
chemical oxidation, pH adjustment to precipitate metals, ultrafiltmtion
membranes to remove total suspended solids and other constituents.
granulated active carbon (GAC) system to remove PFAS compounds.
and associated equipment
Pretreatment Program (Y/N):
N
County:
Bladen
Region:
Fayetteville
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background:
Page 1 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
Chemours is a major industrial facility. Chemours operates an ion exchange monomers process and a
polymer processing aid process. Also on -site, DuPont operates a polyvinyl fluoride process, and Kuraray
operates Butacite and SentryGlas processes.
Beginning in mid-2017, PFAS compounds were found in the Cape Fear River. Certain compounds of
concern, including GenX or HFPO dimer acid (HFPO-DA), were traced back to Chemours. Health effects
of many PFAS are currently not well-known, but some are possibly linked health effects include kidney
disease, developmental effects to fetuses, and some forms of cancer. To -date, EPA and the state of NC have
not released/approved of any regulatory standards for these compounds. EPA has released a drinking water
health advisory of 70 ng/L for the sum of PFOA and PFOS. NC Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) has released a drinking water health goal (for the most vulnerable population) of 140 ng/L for
GenX.
In order to reduce PFAS loading to the Cape Fear River pursuant to the Consent Order entered by the Bladen
County Superior Court on February 25, 2019 ("Consent Order"), Chemours has requested a new NPDES
permit for the discharge of treated groundwater, treated stormwater, and treated surface water from seeps
located on its property.
The flow from Outfall 004 consists primarily of contaminated groundwater, stormwater, and seep water,
which must be treated to remove at least 99% of indicator parameters HFPO-DA (GenX), PFMOAA, and
PMPA. The treatment system shall meet such discharge limits as shall be set by DEQ, and shall, in addition
and at a minimum, be at least 99% effective in controlling indicator parameters, HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and
PMPA, i.e. 99% removal of these parameters. The issuance of this permit will allow Chemours to begin
remediation on this portion of it's site to meet the Consent Order requirement and reduce PFAS loading to
the Cape Fear River.
Additionally, as part of the Consent Order, Chemours was required to conduct a Mass Loading Assessment.
The summary report was submitted to DEQ on December 6, 2019 and updated quarterly since then. The
report assesses pathways for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on and around the site and their
potential mass loadings to the Cape Fear River using data from the May, June, and September 2019 sampling
for the facility. Chemours preliminarily estimated that treating groundwater and seeps will reduce overall
loading of Total Table 3+ PFAS compounds to the river by 5 1 % based on an average of these two sampling
events (Cape Fear River PFAS Loading Reduction Plan — Supplemental Information Report, November
2019). According to Chemours' most recent mass loading report, onsite groundwater currently contributes
over 60% of the remaining PFAS loading to the Cape Fear River.
The outfall from the treatment system is named Outfall 004 in this new permit to allow for the potential
consolidation of Chemours' other NPDES wastewater permit, NC0003573, in the future.
Outfall 004 — Treated contaminated groundwater, stormwater, and surface water from seeps A and
B.
The treatment system for the contaminated groundwater, stormwater, and seeps (seep A and seep B) is
designed to treat PFAS compounds, and remove 99% of the PFAS compounds measured by indicator
parameters HFPO-DA (GenX), PMPA, and PFMOAA. The system will treat groundwater from the series of
extraction wells (-64 wells) and surface water (including stormwater) from seep A and seep B, it is capable
of treating peak flows of 2.9 MGD, the average flow is projected to be 2.38 MGD. Most of the flow (91%)
to the treatment system will be coming from groundwater. All the dry weather flow from seeps A and B as
well as 0.5 inches of rain during 24-hour period will be captured and treated. This extracted contaminated
groundwater, stormwater, and surface water from seeps A and B would otherwise flow untreated to the Cape
Fear River.
Page 2 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
The treatment system will include a chemical oxidation and pH adjustment to precipitate metals, ultrafiltration
membranes to remove precipitated metals and other total suspended solids, a granulated active carbon (GAC)
system to remove PFAS compounds, and other associated equipment. Treated effluent will be monitored and
sampled at an internal point considered to be Outfall 004 then piped and mixed with existing wastewaters
discharged through Outfall 002. The average flow from Outfall 004 is expected to be 2.38 MGD, and the
average flow from Outfall 002 prior to the addition of the Outfall 004 is 23.17 MGD. Solids associated with
reject streams from filtration and GAC systems will undergo dewatering through a thickening tank and filter
press or centrifugation, from which sludge cake will be disposed of offsite and the press water will be recycled
to the influent of the thickening tanks.
This permit will not authorize the discharge of any process wastewater from Chemours. The only process
wastewater discharged comes from Chemours' tenants DuPont and Kuraray.
Installation of the treatment system that will remove 99% of the PFAS compounds from this groundwater,
stormwater, and seeps pumped to this system and will result in significant reduction of the PFAS
compounds in the effluent based upon data provided by Chemours.
The solids generated in the treatment plant will be tested and shipped off -site either to an incinerator or a
licensed landfill. The GAC will be sent back to the manufacturer for recycling.
Projected Mass Load Reductions based on the indicator parameters of HFPO-DA, PMPA, and PFMOAA
are calculated below.
Groundwater/Seeps
HFPO-DA= 0.0122 mg/L x 0.99 x 2.38 MGD x 8.34 x 365 days = 87.5 lb/year
PFMOAA= 0.0643 mg/L x 0.99 x 2.38 MGD x 8.34 x 365 days = 461.2 lb/year
PMPA= 0.0132 mg/L x 0.99 x 2.38 MGD x 8.34 x 365 days = 94.7 lb/year
Total reduction-- 643.4 lb/year
(Concentration of these indicator parameters were obtained from the Chemours Fayetteville Works NPDES
Permit Application for the Groundwater Treatment System dated June 13, 2021. Average concentration for
each parameter is used for calculations).
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, an in -person public hearing was held on June
21, and a virtual public hearing was held on June 23, 2022, regarding the proposed NPDES permit.
Notice of the proposals and the original hearing was published on May 17, 2022, in the
Wilmington Star -News (notice is attached). On May 17, 2022, a news release about the public
hearing was sent to media statewide as well as parties who voluntarily signed up to receive it, such
as attorneys, businesses, and citizens. On May 17, 2022, an announcement of the public hearing
was sent to the DWRPublicNotices List serve.
During both hearings, general information about the hearing as well as the draft permit was
followed by DWR presentations with detailed information about the draft permit. Speakers
provided public comments on the draft permit after the DWR presentation. Written comments
were accepted for the proposed NPDES permit from May 17, 2022, through June 24, 2022. The
Hearing Officer's Report details the public comments received.
Since the release of the draft permit, on June 15, 2022, EPA issued a lifetime, drinking water
health advisory of 10 ng/L for GenX chemicals. EPA's drinking water advisory levels "identify
Page 3 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water at which adverse health effects are not
anticipated to occur over specific exposure donations."
Based on review of the public record and written/oral comments received during the public hearing
process, and further evaluation and consideration of the treatment data from Outfall 003, the
following changes have been made to the draft permit:
1. Incorporated the wall maintenance requirements into the permit.
2. Revised initial limits for PFMOAA from 640 ng/L to 320 ng/L, and for PMPA from 130
ng/L to 100 ng/L.
3. Revised the limits for 3 indicator parameters to <10.0 ng/L for HFPO-DA (GenX), 10 ng/L
for PMPA, and < 20.0 ng/L for PFMOAA after a 6-month optimization period.
Please note that as a matter of record a fact sheet contains both the original Rational for the Draft
Permit (blue text) based on the information available at that time and the changes made after the
Public Hearings oral and written comments and further evaluations (red text). Changes to the draft
permit are summarized at the end of the Fact Sheet in Section 17.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information
[Outfall 004]
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Internal Outfall 004 discharges through Outfall 002 to Cape
Fear River
Stream Segment
18-(26.25)
Stream Classification
C, WS-IV
Drainage Area (m 2):
4852
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
8:1 dilution for Outfall 002 (17.14 cfs, the number is based on
the modeling)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
603
30Q2 (cfs):
900
Average Flow (cfs):
4220
IWC (% effluent):
12.5 % (based on the model) applies to Outfall 002
303(d) fisted/parameter:
No, the segment is not listed on the 2018 303(d) fist
Subject to TMDUparameter:
Yes — State-wide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Sub-basin/IIUC:
Outfa11002: 03-06-16 / HUC: 03030005
USGS Topo Quad:
Duart
3. Effluent Data Summary
Page 4 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
N/A — New Discharge
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/1 of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring
Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case
instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will beproposedfor this permit
action: As part of the Consent Order (Paragraph I I (d)), Chemours is required to sample its intake,
discharge (Outfall 002), and a multitude of additional on -site locations for PFAS compounds. These
sampling efforts are detailed in the Updated PFAS Characterization Plan, dated May 1, 2019. This plan and
the sampling locations were conditionally approved by DWR on June 19, 2019.
Chemours' existing NPDES permit, NC0003573, has instream monitoring requirements for temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and conductivity on a weekly basis to evaluate the effects of its discharge on the
receiving stream. Chemours is a member of the Middle Cape Fear Basin Association, with upstream
coalition station B8290000 (approximately 1 mile upstream of Outfall 002) and downstream coalition
station B8302000 (approximately 4 miles downstream of Outfall 002). Instream monitoring for PFAS
compounds is required in Chemours Permit NCO089915 (Outfall 003).
In order to evaluate impact of the remediation activities on the instream concentration of PFAS a
comprehensive monitoring at four different transects along the Cape Fear River will be added to the permit
(please see Special Condition A. (7.)).
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): Y
Name of Monitoring Coalition: Middle Cape Fear Basin Association
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past S years): This is a new permit.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): This is a new permit.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: This is a new permit.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Z
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following stream flows are used for dilution considerations for
development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic Life;
non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results):
The proposed treatment system will discharge from Internal Outfall 004, the treated wastewater from this
Outfall will be routed to Cape Fear River through Outfall 002. Geosyntec Consultants of NC has submitted
Page 5 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
CORMIX model results on behalf of The Chemours Company FC, LLC for the primary discharge Outfall
002 of their Fayetteville Works site discharging to the Cape Fear River, classified WS-IV, approximately
1,500 feet above the William O Huske Dam aka Lock and Dam 3 in Bladen County. The discharge was
modeled because of concerns over incomplete mixing due to the presence of the lock and dam system and
background concentrations from site runoff, aerial deposition, seepage, and groundwater flow containing
per -and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) into the river.
The CORMIX model river schematization used The Army Corps of Engineers 2016 bathymetric survey
data which showed a consistent river cross-section profile from the point of discharge to just above Lock
and Dam 3. Critical river flows were obtained from the USGS in June 2019, which showed a marked
decrease in critical flow statistics from those used in prior permits. The lower flows reflect changes in the
B. Everett Jordan Lake Drought Contingency Plan formally approved in 2008 and operationally in effect
since 2007. Water levels in the model were determined from the continuous record USGS stream gage
(Station 02105500) located at the lock and dam. Outfall parameters in the model were based on the existing
outfall configuration.
The modeled pollutant of concern is HFPO-DA which showed continued mixing up to 21.2 in from the
outfall where the plume begins to exhibit passive ambient diffusion with little additional dilution. At this
point the effluent plume dilution is 8:1 until model end. The 8:1 dilution is used to establish dilution based
effluent limitations for parameters with little to no background concentrations. The 8:1 dilution is both more
conservative than and supported over instream waste concentration (IWC) based limitations normally
performed under 15A NCAC 2B. The IWC from using standard procedures under 7Q10 flow conditions of
467 cubic feet per second (cfs) would be 9% versus 12.5% at an 8:1 dilution.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 1 SA NCAC 2B.0204(b): N/A
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: N/A
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection of
aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: N/A
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
Page 6 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of/2 detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) stream flows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 213.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between May 2016 and
March 2020. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water quality
standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this permit:
Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria: None
Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor -only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: Lead, Cadmium,
and Silver.
No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Arsenic,
Beryllium, Total Phenolic Compounds, Chromium, Copper, Cyanide, Fluoride, Nickel, Mercury,
Molybdenum, Selenium, Zinc, Sulfate, Aluminum, Barium, Chloroform, Antimony, Thallium, and
HFPO-DA (WQBEL is not required, TBEL will be used).
Attached are the RPA results and a copy of the guidance entitled "NPDES Implementation of Instream
Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards. "
Toxicitv Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Major Industrial facility, and a chronic WET limit at
12.5% with quarterly frequency is established in the permit.
Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (-2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will receive
an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a pollutant
of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL
value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/l.
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: This is anew permit and the Division has
no historic data to conduct a comprehensive evaluation. The RPA does not indicate the need for a limit and
Page 7 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
the effluent demonstrated compliance with the annual average Technology Based Effluent Limit for
mercury of 47.0 ng/L. No limit is required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: N/A
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs:
The Technology Based Effluent Limits were the guiding criteria used to develop permit limitations for
HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA.
When EPA develops PFAS criteria or the State adopts standards for any of the compounds generated by
Chemours, the Division will conduct a reasonable potential analysis and reopen the permit to include the
new limits, if they are more stringent than the TBELs.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: N/A
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 1 SA
NCAC 2H 0107(c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: N/A
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 1 SA NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: N/A
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Industrials (if not applicable, delete and skip to next Section)
Describe what this facility produces: This is a surface/groundwater remediation permit for the Chemours
facility that produces organic chemicals.
List the federal effluent limitations guideline (ELG) for this facility: N/A
If the ELG is based on production or flow, document how the average productionfflow value was
calculated: N/A
For ELG limits, document the calculations used to develop TBEL limits: N/A
If any limits are based on best professional judgement (BPJ), describe development: N/A
Document any TBELs that are more stringent than WQBELs:
Document any TBELs that are less stringent than previous permit: N/A
HFPO-DA, PMPA, and PFMOAA were chosen as the three PFAS compounds that would be used to
indicate reductions of Total PFAS in the remediated surface water. Therefore, TBELs for HFPO-DA,
PFMOAA, and PMPA were calculated while recognizing the Consent Order's requirement that the
treatment system removes at least 99% of HFPO-DA and PFMOAA.
The facility provided a Report on Treatment of Groundwater Treatability. The Report demonstrated that the
proposed GAC system is able to remove 99% of the total Table 3+ PFAS compounds (as listed in NPDES
permit application) present in the wastewater based on current analytical reporting limits and influent
concentrations. The GAC system showed that when indicator compounds PFMOAA, PMPA, and HFPO-
Page 8 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
DA are removed at the rate of 99%, the Total Table 3+ compounds (as listed in NPDES application) were
also removed at the rate of 99% based on current analytical detection levels.
The expected effluent at 99% removal would be as follows (based on the projected average concentration):
Monthly Average Limits/ Daily Maximum Limits:
HFPO-DA = (12.2 µg/L/ 100%) * 1 % = 122 ng/L
PFMOAA = (64.3 µg/L/100%) * 1 % = 643 ng/L
PMPA = (13.2 µg/L/100%) * 1% = 132 ng/L
These calculations are based on Chemours data provided in the application.
In addition, and as required by the Consent Order, the treatment system will have to demonstrate 99%
removal for HFPO-DA, PFMOAA, and PMPA based on monthly average concentration data.
%Removal = Influent -Effluent * 100
Influent
Where: Influent = monthly average influent concentration
Effluent = monthly average effluent concentration
This percent removal will be reported monthly with Chemours electronic Discharge Monitoring Report
(eDMR) data. The water treatment system effluent concentrations of less than the current reporting limits
shall be considered as achieving 99% removal.
It is important to emphasize that the 99% removal requirement is self -tightening because as the influent
concentration decreases over time, the enforceable effluent limit will also decrease.
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge)
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: The facility provided an EAA to justify the chosen
disposal alternative for this new discharge; the complete EAA document can be found within the
application in DWR's Laserfiche files.
The facility reviewed the following available alternatives: Connection to the Existing Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW), Wastewater Reuse in the Facility, and Direct Discharge.
Connection to the existing POTW was not available since the nearest Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation
Facility refused to accept this wastewater. Reuse is currently not a feasible option, because, including but
not limited to, - the Consent Order requires Chemours to accelerated reduction of PFAS contamination in
the Cape Fear River and downstream water intakes within a two-year period, and it would be difficult for
Chemours to implement this in an accelerated manner. In addition, the facility is already uses Reverse
Osmosis (RO) to treat wastewater from HFPO-DA process and Thermal Oxidizer wastewater. The RO
effluent is being reused at the facility if it meets the production specifications for Total Organic Carbon.
Page 9 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
Furthermore, the flow from Outfall 004 is expected to be around 2.38 MGD, which substantially exceed
production needs of all the manufacturing entities that use less than 0.6 MGD.
The Present Value Costs for the next 20 years was calculated for the following alternatives using an EPA
discount factor of 3.5%; the Costs are presented below:
Wastewater Reuse in the Facility - $69,600,000
Direct Discharge- $68,200,000
As compared to other alternatives, and in accordance with 15A NCAC 2 1 .0105(c)(2), the Engineering
Alternatives Analysis provided justification for a direct discharge to surface water alternative and indicated
that the direct discharge is the most environmentally sound alternative selected from all reasonably cost-
effective options.
9. Antibacksliding Review
Sections 402(0)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations to a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): N/A. This is a new permit.
I,fYES, confirm that anfibackslidingprovisions are not violated. N/A
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(0) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.
12. Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions
Table A. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 004
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Page 10 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
Flow
N/A (new permit)
Monitoring and 2.38
15A NCAC 2B .0505
MGD limit added
Flow limit is based on system design
Total Monthly
N/A (new permit)
Monitoring added
Needed to calculate loading
Flow
Consent order requirements.
BOD5
N/A (new permit)
30.0 mg/L MA
WQBEL. Based on protection of DO
standard. 15A NCAC 2B.0200
45.0 mg/L DM
TSS
N/A (new permit)
30.0 mg/L MA
TBEL. Best Professional Judgement.
45.0 mg/L DM
Temperature
N/A (new permit)
The ambient water
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
temperature to exceed
NCAC 2B.0200
320C
DO
N/A (new permit)
Weekly
State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
upstream/downstream
.0200
Monitoring Only
N/A (new permit)
MA 0.12 µg/L
TBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
DM 0.12 µg/L
15A NCAC 2B.0200
HFPO-DA (GenX)
and
Consent order requirements.
99% removal
Values are based on system design.
N/A (new permit)
MA 0.64 µg/L
TBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
DM 0.64 µg /L
15A NCAC 2B.0200
PFMOAA
and
Consent order requirements.
99% removal
Values are based on system design.
N/A (new permit)
MA 0.13 µg/L
TBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
DM 0.13 µg/L
15A NCAC 2B.0200
PMPA
and
Consent order requirements.
99% removal
Values are based on system design.
PFAS compounds
N/A (new permit)
Monitoring added
TBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
15A NCAC 2B.0200
(Table 3+ and/or
EPA Method 357
mod)
pH
N/A (new permit)
6.0 — 9.0 SU
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B.0200
Total Nitrogen
N/A (new permit)
Monthly Effluent
State WQ Rule, 15A NCAC 2B
Monitoring Only
.0500
Page 11 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
Total Phosphorus
N/A (new permit)
Monthly Effluent
State WQ Rule, 15A NCAC 2B
Monitoring Only
.0500
Conductivity
N/A (new permit)
Monthly
State WQ Rule, 15A NCAC 2B
upstream/downstream
.0500
Monitoring Only
Toxicity Test
N/A (new permit)
Chronic limit, 12.5%
WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
effluent
amounts. 15A NCAC 213.0200 and
15A NCAC 213.0500
Total Hardness
N/A (new permit)
Monitoring added
State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
.0200
Total Silver
N/A (new permit)
Quarterly Effluent
State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
Monitoring Only
.0200
Monitoring is based on RPA
Total Cadmium
N/A (new permit)
Quarterly Effluent
State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
Monitoring Only
.0200
Monitoring is based on RPA
Total Lead
N/A (new permit
Quarterly Effluent
State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
Monitoring Only
.0200
Monitoring is based on RPA
Total Thallium
N/A (new permit
Quarterly Effluent
State WQ standard, 15A NCAC 2B
Monitoring Only
.0200
Monitoring is based on RPA
Electronic
N/A (new permit)
Required
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA — Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
13. Public Notice Schedule
Permit to Public Notice: 05/22/2022
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Sergei Chernikov at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable)
Page 12 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): Yes
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable)
• RPA Sheets
• NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards
• DMR Parameter Values Export — PFMOAA, PMPA, BFPO-DA
IT Changes in the Final Pefmit
• The Division is establishing an effluent limit for HFPO-DA of <10.0 ng/L based on the EPA
drinlang water health advisory of 10 ng/L that was issued on June 15, 2022, which was published
after issuance of the draft permit In addition, based on an evaluation of the data from Outfall 003,
after an initial optimization period, effluent concentrations me consistently < 10.0 ng/L.
• Based on an evaluation of the data from Outfalt 003 and in accordance with the procedure
established in Chapter 5 of USEPA NPDES Permit Writers' Manual the Division is also
establishing effluent limits for PMPA and PFMOAA as 10.0 ng/L and <20.0 ng/L, respectively.
Please see attached calculations on file labeled DMR Parameter Values Export.
• Limits for all three indicator parameters will take effect after a 6-month optimization period.
• During the optimization period, effluent limits will be 120 ng/L for BFPO-DA, 320 ng/L for
PFMOAA, and 100 ng/L for PMPA. These limits are based on best professional judgement.
These changes are summarized m the table below.
Parameter
Draft Permit
Final Permit
Basis for Condition/Change
MA 0.12 µg/L
MA 0.12 µg/L
TBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
DM 0.12 µg/L
DM 0.12 µg/L
15A NCAC 2B.0200
and
and
Consent order requirements.
BFPO-DA (GenX)
99% removal
99% removal
Values are based on system design.
After 6 months:
MA <0.010 µg/L
New EPA driniting water health
DM <0.010 µg/L
advisory of 10 ng/L.
MA 0.64 µg/L
MA 0.32 pg/L
TBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
DM 0.64 µg /L
DM 0.32 µg /L
15A NCAC 2B.0200
PFMOAA
and
and
Consent order requirements.
99% removal
99% removal
Values are based on system design.
After 6 months:
Page 13 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
MA <0.020 pg/L
DM <0.020 pg/L
Procedure in Chapter 5 of USEPA
NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
MA 0.13 µg/L
MA 0.10 pg/L
TBEL. No toxics in toxic amounts.
DM 0.13 µg/L
DM 0.10 pg/L
15A NCAC 2B.0200
and
and
Consent order requirements.
PMPA
99%removal
99%removal
Values are based on system design.
After 6 months:
MA 0.010 µg/L
Procedure in Chapter 5 of USEPA
DM 0.010 µg/L
NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
MGD —Million gallons per day, MA — Monthly Average, WA— Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards — Freshwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metal limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved -
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter
Acute FW, µg/I
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µ el
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/1
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/I
(Dissolved)
Arsenic
340
150
69
36
Beryfluma
65
6.5
Cadmium
Calculation
Calculation
40
8.8
ChmnaunnIII
Calculation
Calculation
ChroommaVI
16
11
lloo
50
Comer
Calculation
Calculation
4.8
3.1
Lead
Calculation
Calculation
210
8.1
Nickel
Calculation
Calculation
74
8.2
Silver
Calculation
0.06
19
O.l
Zinc
Calculation
Calculation
90
81
Page 14 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW=Freshwater, SW Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life standards
for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to bioaccumulative
concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary to evaluate total
recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC 2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at
10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 pg(L and fluoride at 1.8 mg/L for aquatic life
protection).
Table 2. Dissolved Freshwater Standards for Hardness -Dependent Metals
The Water Effects Ratio (WER) is equal to one unless determined otherwise under
15A NCAC 02B .0211 Subparagraph (11)(d)
Metal
NC Dissolved Standard, µg/I
Cadmium, Acute
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} eA{0.9151 [In
hardness]-3.1485}
Cadmium, Acute Trout
waters
WER*{1.136672-[In hardness](0.041838)} eA{0.9151[/n
hardness]-3.6236}
Cadmium, Chronic
WER*{1.101672-[In hardness](0.041838)} eA{0.7998[/n
hardness]-4.4451 }
Chromium III, Acute
WER*0316 eA{0.8190[/n hardness]+3.7256}
Chromium III, Chronic
WER*0.860 - eA{0.8190[/n hardness]+0.6848}
Copper, Acute
WER*0960 - eA{0.9422[/n hardness]-1.700}
Copper, Chronic
WER*0.960 - eA{0.8545[/n hardness]-1.702}
Lead, Acute
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)}.eA{1273[lnhardness]-
1.460}
Lead, Chronic
WER*{1.46203-[In hardness](0.145712)} . eA{1.273[ln hardness]-
4.705}
Nickel, Acute
WER*0.998 - eA{0.8460[/n hardness]+2.255}
Nickel, Chronic
WER*0.997 - eA{0.8460[/n hardness]+0.0584}
Silver, Acute
WER*0.85 - eA{1.72[ln hardness]-6.59}
Silver, Chronic
Not applicable
Zinc, Acute
WER*0.978 - eA{0.8473[/n hardness]+0.884}
Zinc, Chronic
WER*0.986 - eA{0.8473[/n hardness]+0.884}
Page 15 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However,
application of the dissolved and hardness -dependent standards requires additional consideration in
order to establish the numeric standard for each metal of concern of each individual discharge.
The hardness -based standards require some knowledge of the effluent and instream (upstream)
hardness and so must be calculated case -by -case for each discharge.
Metals limits must be expressed as `total recoverable' metals in accordance with 40 CFR
122.45(c). The discharge -specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for
use in the RPA calculations. We will generally rely on default translator values developed for each
metal (more on that below), but it is also possible to consider case -specific translators developed in
accordance with established methodology.
RPA Permitting Guidance/WOBELs for Hardness -Dependent Metals - Freshwater
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the critical low -flow values for the receiving stream.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most
cases. If monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e.
consistently below detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in
the reissued permit.
To perform a RPA on the Freshwater hardness -dependent metals the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Critical low flow of the receiving stream, 7Q 10 (the spreadsheet automatically calculates
the 1 Q 10 using the formula 1 Q 10 = 0.843 (s7Q 10, cfs) 0 993
• Effluent hardness and upstream hardness, site -specific data is preferred
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
2. In order to establish the numeric standard for each hardness -dependent metal of concern and for
each individual discharge, the Permit Writer must first determine what effluent and instream
(upstream) hardness values to use in the equations.
The permit writer reviews DMR's, Effluent Pollutant Scans, and Toxicity Test results for any
hardness data and contacts the Permittee to see if any additional data is available for instream
hardness values, upstream of the discharge.
If no hardness data is available, the permit writer may choose to do an initial evaluation using a
default hardness of 25 mg/L (CaCO3 or (Ca + Mg)). Minimum and maximum limits on the
hardness value used for water quality calculations are 25 mg/L and 400 mg/L, respectively.
If the use of a default hardness value results in a hardness -dependent metal showing reasonable
potential, the permit writer contacts the Permittee and requests 5 site -specific effluent and upstream
hardness samples over a period of one week. The RPA is rerun using the new data.
The overall hardness value used in the water quality calculations is calculated as follows:
Page 16 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
Combined Hardness (chronic)
= (Permitted Flow, cfs *Avg. Effluent Hardness, mg/L) + (s7Q10, cfs *Avg. Upstream Hardness, mg/L)
(Permitted Flow, cfs + s7Q 10, cfs)
The Combined Hardness for acute is the same but the calculation uses the IQ 10 flow.
3. The permit writer converts the numeric standard for each metal of concern to a total recoverable
metal, using the EPA Default Partition Coefficients (DPCs) or site -specific translators, if any have
been developed using federally approved methodology.
EPA default partition coefficients or the "Fraction Dissolved" converts the value for
dissolved metal at laboratory conditions to total recoverable metal at in -stream
ambient conditions. This factor is calculated using the linear partition coefficients
found in The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable
Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996) and the
equation:
Cdiss — 1
Ctotal 1 + { [Kpo] [ss(1+a)1 [10-11 t
Where:
ss = in -stream suspended solids concentration [mg/1], minimum of 10 mg/L used,
4. The numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the default partition coefficient (or
site -specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.
In some cases, where an EPA default partition coefficient translator does not exist (i.e. silver), the
dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to
obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal is
dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA's criteria development for metals. For more
information on conversion factors see the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document.
5. The RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine the total allowable concentration
(permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:
Ca = (s7Q 10 + Qw) (Cwgs) — (s7Q 10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match s7Q 10)
Page 17 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
s7Q 10 = summer low flow used to protect aquatic life from chronic toxicity and human health
through the consumption of water, fish, and shellfish from noncarcinogens (cfs)
* Discussions are on -going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations
Flows other than s7Q10 may be incorporated as applicable:
IQ 10 = used in the equation to protect aquatic life from acute toxicity
QA = used in the equation to protect human health through the consumption of water, fish,
and shellfish from carcinogens
30Q2 = used in the equation to protect aesthetic quality
6. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of
concern. Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date
of the permit application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th
percentile upper concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are
compared to the Total allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary.
If the predicted max exceeds the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the
discharge is considered to show reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard,
and a permit limit (Total allowable concentration) is included in the permit in accordance
with the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics
Control published in 1991.
7. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance with
the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on 40 CFR
122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.
The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with trivalent chromium and hexavalent
chromium Water Quality Standards. As a cost savings measure, total chromium data results may be
used as a conservative surrogate in cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium
III or VI. In these cases, the projected maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be
compared against water quality standards for chromium III and chromium VI.
9. Effluent hardness sampling and instream hardness sampling, upstream of the discharge, are inserted
into all permits with facilities monitoring for hardness -dependent metals to ensure the accuracy of
the permit limits and to build a more robust hardness dataset.
10. Hardness and flow values used in the Reasonable Potential Analysis for this permit included:
Parameter
Value
Comments ata Source
Average Effluent Hardness (mg/L)
Total as, CaCO3 or Ca+M
25.0
Default value
Average Upstream Hardness (mg/L)
25.0
Default value
Total as, CaCO3 or Ca+M
7Q 10 summer cfs
0
Lake or Tidal
1 10 cfs
0
Lake or Tidal
Permitted Flow MGD
2.1
For dewaterin
Page 18 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
DMR Parameter Values Export — PFMOAA 1/4/2021 through 5/3/2022 n =92
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0039
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0022
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.004
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0047
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0024
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0029
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.004
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0032
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0024
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0061
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0032
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0043
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0064
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0025
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0025
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0031
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0053
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0028
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.0025
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
Page 19 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ng/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/10.002 LESSTHAN
Page 20 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
52613 - Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) Grab ug/l 0.002 LESSTHAN
99th percentile 0.006127
Mean (daily) 0.00233
Daily variability factor 2.629123
Daily Maximum 0.006127 Rounded to 0.02 in the permit.
due to the high variability
factor
DMR Parameter Values Export - PMPA Jan. 2021 through May 2022 n=82
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
Page 21 of 27

Permit Number NCO090042
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
52624 - Perfluoro-2-methoxypropanoic acid (PMPA) Grab ug/l 0.01 LESSTHAN
99th percentile 0.01
Mean (daily) 0.01
Daily variability factor 1
Daily Maximum 0.01
95th percentile 0.01
Monthly variability factor 1
Monthly Average 0.01
Page 22 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
DMR Parameter Values Export - HFPO-DA Jan. 2021 through May 2022 n=103
Page 23 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA /GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA/GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.025
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612 - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612 - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612 - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.0021
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.0021
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
Page 24 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA /GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612 - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.0022
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612 - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612 - Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.0023
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.0023
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
Page 25 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA /GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
Page 26 of 27

Permit Number NC0090042
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA /GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA/GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA/GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA/GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA/GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA/GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA/GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
52612
- Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA / PFPrOPrA / GenX)
Grab
ug/I
0.002 LESSTHAN
99th percentile 0.0023
Mean (daily)
0.00223301
Daily variability factor 1.03
Daily Maximum 0.0023
Page 27 of 27

ATTACHMENT 14

D-1
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Rule Topic: 2020-2022 Triennial Review -- Surface Water Quality Standards
Rule Citations: 15A NCAC 02B .0202 — Definitions
15A NCAC 02B .0208
— Standards for Toxic Substances and Temperature
15A NCAC 02B .0211
— Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0212
— Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-I
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0214
— Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-II
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0215
— Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-III
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0216
— Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-IV
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0218
— Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-V
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0219
— Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class B
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0220
— Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SC Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0301—
Classifications: General
15A NCAC 02B .0311
— Cape Fear River Basin
DEQ Division: Division of Water Resources (DWR)
Staff Contacts: Connie Brower, Water Quality Standards Coordinator, DWR
[e-mail]
[phone]
Chris Ventaloro, Water Quality Standards Co -coordinator, DWR
[e-mail]
[phone]
Julie Ventaloro, Economist, DWR
[e-mail]
[phone]
Impact Summary: State government: Net benefits to DEQ due to switch from Fecal Coliform (FC)
to E. Coli pathogen indicator (02B .0219).
Local government: Net benefits due to revised Cadmium and Cyanide
standards; potential zero to minimal costs due to revised
Selenium standard (02B .0211; 02B .0220).
Federal government: No impact.

D-2
Private entities: Net benefits due to revised Cadmium and Cyanide
standards; potential zero to minimal costs due to revised
Selenium standard (0213 .0211; 02B .0220).
Substantial Impact: Total annual economic impact (costs + benefits) is not
projected to exceed > $1,000,000.
Authority: N.C.G.S. 143-214.1 and 215.3(a)
Necessity: To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) which requires that states and tribes
evaluate and revise, as necessary, water quality standards at least once every three
years. This process is known as the "Triennial Review."
Appendices: References
Lists of NPDES wastewater permits with limits
Proposed rule text
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this document is to provide an analysis of the fiscal impacts associated with proposed
amendments to the surface water quality standards (or "the standards") in Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0200
and .0300. The amendments are in compliance with Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act which
requires that states and tribes evaluate and revise, as necessary, water quality standards at least once
every three years. This process is known as the "Triennial Review."
Revision of the subject rules is required by the Clean Water Act to ensure that the standards reflect the
current state of the science with regard to protective health and toxicological information. The proposed
revisions will allow North Carolina to better protect human health and aquatic life, thereby continuing
to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
In addition to several minor technical changes and rule language updates, DWR is proposing revisions
and additions to numeric and narrative standards for the following substances:
• 1,4-dioxane: Codify existing "in -stream target values" (ITVs) as standards for freshwater fish
consumption and water supply waters;
• Selenium: Revise aquatic life freshwater standard;
• Cadmium: Revise aquatic life freshwater and saltwater standards;
• Cyanide: Revise aquatic life freshwater standard;
• E. coli: Replace FC bacterial indicator with E. coli for Class B waters in the Asheville
Regional Office area.
In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the proposed amendments to 15A NCAC 02B .0200 and .0300
comprise the state's 2020-2022 Triennial Review of surface water quality standards.

D-3
As part of the North Carolina rulemaking process, North Carolina General Statute 150B-19.1 requires
agencies to quantify to the "greatest extent possible" the costs and benefits to affected parties of a
proposed rule. The agency anticipates that if the surface water quality standards are adopted as
proposed, the changes would result in the following direct, near -term economic impacts:
• The changes to the cadmium and cyanide standards are likely to result in significant benefits to a
small number of local government and private entities in the form of avoided costs due to
reduced wastewater treatment and discharge monitoring requirements. Cost savings to
additional permitted NPDES wastewater facilities are possible for either of these parameters but
are less likely for cyanide;
• The addition of the E. coli standard is likely to result in modest net benefits to the DEQ
laboratory in Asheville in the form of opportunity cost savings, despite the higher cost of the
preferred Colilert® test method as compared to fecal coliform by membrane filtration method.
Although we did not attempt to monetize cost savings to commercial laboratories, they could see
similar cost savings if they choose to use the Colilert® method; and
• Minimal costs to a small number of NPDES wastewater dischargers are possible, but unlikely,
due to the change to the selenium standard. Due to data limitations, there is uncertainty about
whether additional permittees will be impacted, but we are reasonably certain that unanticipated
impacts will be small.
These estimates were based on the best available data and reasonable assumptions. The Division was
not able to analyze all potentially impacted permits due to staff and time constraints. For the permits for
which we were able to perform more in-depth analyses, there are unknown variables that could result in
different outcomes at the time of permit renewal. Based on our best available information and
acknowledging the limitations of our analyses, we estimate that the quantified net economic impact
(benefits minus costs) to regulated parties, local government and state government is approximately
$3.96 million Net Present Value (NPV) over a 10-year period using 2021 dollars discounted at a rate
of 7%.
In addition to the quantified impacts to regulated parties and state government, we anticipate the
following indirect, long-t'g erm unquantified impacts to human health and the environment:
• Positive impacts to aquatic life are possible from potential, but unlikely, reductions (or avoided
increases) in selenium concentrations in wastewater discharges. Reductions (or avoided
increases) in selenium could also positively impact aquatic habitat which supports commercial
and recreational fisheries. These potential impacts are unlikely due to the fact that the facilities
most likely to receive new treatment requirements (based on reasonable potential analyses) are
planning to retire their operations before permit renewal or anticipated schedules of compliance
would go into effect;
• Positive impacts to aquatic life are possible from more accurate assessment of waterbodies for
impairment for selenium based on the new fish tissue standard and the lower water column

D-4
standard. It is reasonable to expect that the revised selenium standard will be a factor in future
assessments and possible TMDL development;
• Positive impacts to aquatic life are possible, but unlikely, as a result of more accurate assessment
of waterbodies for impairment for pathogenic indicators using E. coli. This potential impact is
unlikely because the adoption of the E. coli standard is not expected to increase the potential for
development of TMDLs as compared to the fecal coliform standard;
• It is reasonable to expect future positive impacts to human health as a result of assessment of
waterbodies for impairment and possible TMDL development for 1,4-dioxane;
• There are likely substantial ongoing human health benefits due to implementation of the 1,4-
dioxane ITVs, which will be unchanged by codifying the existing ITVs into rule. Since these
impacts from regulating 1,4-dioxane are ongoing and are not the result of the proposed
rulemaking, we have not included benefit/cost estimates for 1,4-dioxane in this analysis;
• The higher (less stringent) freshwater cadmium standard will not result in unacceptable toxicity
effects to aquatic organisms; and
• The change to the cyanide standard will provide at least equivalent environmental protection.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the water quality standards is to protect surface waters from the deleterious effects
of pollution. Surface waters are protected based on their established "uses." Each surface water in
the State receives a classification that defines the uses that apply and the water quality standards
established to protect those uses. The classifications and standards are codified in the subject rules.
2.2 What are "water quality standards"?
Water quality standards are "provisions of state, territorial, authorized tribal or federal law
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that describe the desired condition
of a water body and the means by which that condition will be protected or achieved."' The
standards consist of three required components:
designated uses of a water body such as "aquatic life propagation and survival," "recreation,"
"shellfishing," and "drinking water;"
water quality criteria necessary to protect the designated uses; and
antidegradation requirements.
1 https://www.epa.gov/standards-water-body-health/what-are-water-quality-standards

D-5
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) assigns classifications to all
surface waters in North Carolina to protect the waterbodies for their designated uses. Existing
rules establish the human and environmental health protection levels (e.g., cancer risk level from
water consumption or fish mortality rate) that correspond with the most sensitive designated use of
a water body. These use -based protection levels set the "goal posts" for the water quality criteria
and remain unchanged.
The criteria (or "standards") are established as numeric values or narrative statements. Numeric
standards establish a pollutant concentration value, or range of values, that are deemed to provide
the level of protection defined by those pre -established "goal posts" (e.g., the proposed standard
for cadmium in tidal waters is 7.9 ug/L for a chronic exposure for aquatic life). Narrative
standards establish a broader descriptive protection, usually to address more complex scenarios
where a numeric value is not feasible (e.g., "oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other
wastes: only such amounts as shall not ... impair the uses").
In addition to the required components, the Clean Water Act allows states and tribes to include
additional components within the standards such as variances and mixing zones. Also, the
narrative standard for toxics, as described in 15A NCAC 02B .0208, provides instructions for
calculating numeric values, referred to here as In -stream Target Values (ITVs), for circumstances
where regulatory values are required for substances that do not have existing surface water quality
standards. ITVs are an important component of this analysis; they are discussed in Section 6 of
this document.
Water quality standards are adopted into rule through the Triennial Review process.
2.3 Triennial Review Process
Under Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, North Carolina is delegated the authority to
establish water quality standards to protect human health and the aquatic environment. Under the
federal delegation, North Carolina is expected to adopt water quality standards to protect all uses
of the waters of the State. The requirements to develop and adopt appropriate classifications and
standards are delegated to the EMC under North Carolina General Statutes 143-214.1 and
215.3(a). In accordance with these statutes, the EMC must consider the same designated uses and
protections as directed by the federal government.
The Triennial Review process itself typically takes three years to complete and consists of the
following steps:
(1) development of scientifically defensible criteria for specific chemicals or water quality
characteristics (e.g., pH, DO, turbidity, etc.). This includes a review of EPA National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)Z. The NRWQC are criteria published by
EPA to assist states in establishing water quality standards for substances of national concern.
Criteria are expressed as concentrations, levels, or narrative statements representing a quality
2 https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-tables

D-6
of water that protects a particular use. When criteria are met, water quality will generally
protect the designated use. For purposes of this document, we use the terms "criteria" and
"standards" interchangeably.
In addition to reviewing the NRWQC and associated scientific information, DEQ considers
other topics of interest to North Carolina, such as 1,4-dioxane. DEQ-DWR staff consult with
various programs within DEQ as well as with other North Carolina state agencies (such as
DHHS), universities, federal agencies (such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA),
other states' environmental agencies, non-profit organizations and other stakeholder groups to
gauge the needs of, or impacts to, various water quality protection programs.
(2) development of a Regulatory Impact Analysis to examine potential costs and benefits to the
environment, regulated parties, and resource users;
(3) public hearing and comment period;
(4) review and response to public comment;
(5) adoption of the proposed criteria and standards into rule by the EMC;
(6) review and approval of the rule amendments by the NC Rules Review Commission (RRC);
and
(7) review and approval of the adopted standards by the EPA.
DEQ anticipates holding public hearings for this proposed rulemaking no earlier than July 2021
and adoption into state rule no earlier than January 2022. We expect submittal to EPA no earlier
than February 2022.
2.4 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)
The proposed rule revisions, which include updates to standards for two metals (cadmium and
selenium), the addition of an optional analysis method for cyanide, and the replacement of the fecal
coliform recreational bacterial indicator with E. coli for Class B waters in the Asheville Regional
Office area, will bring North Carolina into alignment with the substances' respective EPA National
Recommended Water Quality (NRWQC). Note that there is not currently a NRWQC for 1,4-
dioxane -- the proposed codification of NC's existing ITV for 1,4-dioxane will address a
contaminant of emerging concern in North Carolina waters.
The NRWQC are based on toxicity data and risk analysis (scientific judgments about the
relationship between the pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects). As
the scientific body of knowledge evolves and new toxicity data become available for inclusion into
the assessment, the EPA revises its NRWQC to reflect the most current scientifically defensible
information. Changes to NRWQC are peer reviewed and go through a public review process. These
criteria are published by the EPA under the requirements of Clean Water Act Section 304(a). EPA
NRWQC do not reflect consideration of economic impacts nor the technological feasibility of
meeting the chemical concentrations in ambient water.

D-7
2.5 Regulatory Programs that use the Surface Water Quality Standards
The standards are the foundation for various state water quality protection programs required by the
Clean Water Act. They "establish the environmental baselines used for measuring the success of
Clean Water Act programs" 3 and serve different purposes depending on the program, as follows:
2.5.1 NPDES Wastewater (direct and indirect dischargers)
The standards provide the regulatory basis for calculating water quality -based effluent
limits for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater
permitting (including the Pretreatment Program). Water -quality based effluent limits, or
"WQBELs," are permit limits that are based on surface water quality standards as opposed
to limits based on treatment performance standards (technology -based effluent limits or
"TBELS"). WQBELs are specific to each discharge and its receiving stream.
To determine the appropriate WQBELs for a given permit, the Division performs a
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for each parameter of concern. An RPA helps the
Division determine if a discharge has a reasonable potential to cause an exceedance of
water quality standards in its receiving stream. RPAs are conducted at issuance and at
each permit renewal, using the then -current characteristics of the discharger's effluent and
the receiving stream. The RPA calculations are repeated for each parameter of concern and
its respective standard. Each RPA consists of calculating the maximum predicted effluent
concentration for the metal of concern, based on actual effluent data from the facility, and
the maximum allowable effluent concentration based on the surface water standard and the
dilution available in the stream under low -flow conditions.
Each RPA results in one of three determinations: 1) that a permit limit is warranted to
protect water quality; 2) that a limit is not warranted but the substance is present in such
concentrations that monitoring, but no limit, is advised; or 3) that no limit or monitoring is
necessary. If a discharge is subject to both technology -based limits and one or more water
quality -based limits for the same substance, the most stringent limitation is included in the
facility's NPDES permit.
Effluent limits based on chronic standards (long-term impacts) are set as monthly
average limits in the permit. Those based on acute standards (short-term impacts) are
generally set as weekly average limits for publicly owned facilities and as daily
maximum limits for private facilities. The NPDES program uses the same RPA
methodology with all wastewater permits. The methodology has been approved by
the EPA as being consistent with its national guidance'.
The same way DEQ's NPDES program must routinely re-evaluate discharge limits and
other permit requirements, municipalities with local pretreatment programs must
3 httDs://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/handbook-chapterl.pdf
"Technical Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control, EPA Document Number 505/2-90-001, March, 1991.
hgps://www3. epa. eov/npdes/pubs/owmO264.pdf

D-8
evaluate whether, in addition to plant improvements and other measures, it is necessary
to set limits on their significant industrial users in order for the Publicly -owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) to comply with their limits.
POTWs with local pretreatment programs issue and administer local permits that are
generally similar to the NPDES permits issued by DWR. Limits in local permits can be
based on categorical pretreatment standards (if applicable) or Headworks Analyses
calculated to prevent interference, pass -through, or sludge contamination. If a parameter
is subject to more than one limit based on these objectives, the more stringent of the limits
applies, just as with technology- and water quality -based limitations in NPDES permits.
Currently, there are 1,094 active NPDES permits. Of these, 114 local governments
administer pretreatment programs for 137 POTWs (out of approx. 292 POTWs). These
local pretreatment programs regulate approximately 592 Significant Industrial Users
(SIUs) and other non -domestic wastewater sources, commonly known as `indirect
dischargers.'
2.5.2 NPDES Stormwater
The standards are often used for deriving benchmark monitoring values for NPDES
industrial stormwater permitting. Benchmarks are written into permits to provide a
guideline for determining the potential of the stormwater discharge to cause toxic impacts
to the surface waters of the state. Stormwater benchmarks are not enforceable effluent
limits. This difference is important because exceeding a wastewater effluent limit is a
violation of permit, whereas exceeding a stormwater benchmark triggers a tiered response
action on the part of the permittee. Exceedances of stormwater benchmarks may trigger a
variety of stormwater pollution prevention actions and sometimes more frequent
monitoring.
Stormwater benchmarks most often reflect acute aquatic life water quality standards.
Acute standards are more frequently used to assess the potential for stormwater impacts
to surface waters as the exposure scenarios of aquatic life to stormwater discharges are
expected to be episodic due to the nature of stormwater flows. Chronic aquatic life
standards and human health standards protect for a more constant, long-term exposure
to a pollutant, which is often not appropriate for general stormwater exposures and,
therefore, are not normally used in stormwater permitting unless a site -specific situation
necessitates it.
2.5.3 Groundwater Protection
The surface water standards are used indirectly in various programs whose primary goal is
to protect groundwater quality. For example, the standards are used for classifying the risk
level of known discharges or releases from groundwater remediation sites that intercept
surface waters. Groundwater remediation projects are designed such that they prevent
violations of the surface water standards, which can result from an improperly managed
discharge from the remediation project. These projects are most often under the

D-9
administration of the Division of Waste Management (landfills, hazardous waste,
underground storage tanks, etc), although the Division of Water Resources does administer
some permits related to groundwater remediation. DWR also administers the Non -
discharge Program which permits sites for land application of biosolids among other
things. Some permits under these programs have components that require monitoring of
adjacent surface waters.
2.5.4 Assessment and Listing of Impaired Waters - 303(d)
The standards are used to help identify designated use impairments for listing waterbodies
on the 303(d) Impaired Waters List. Water quality assessment is the process of collecting
data and using that data to assess the quality of surface waters. The assessed waters are
placed into one of five categories that describe the status of water quality. Assessment is
conducted in three parts:
1) Collection of water quality data by DWR ambient monitoring staff and the NPDES
Coalition Monitoring Program.5 The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of
sampling stations established to provide site -specific, long-term water quality information
on rivers, streams, and estuaries throughout North Carolina. Stations are visited regularly
for the collection of a variety of physical, chemical, and bacterial pathogen samples and
measurements. The AMS program has been active for over 40 years and currently has 329
active AMS stations located in all 17 major river basins of the state. Another component of
the AMS program is the Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) program. The
RAMS program has been active for 14 years and serves to provide monitoring at random
locations throughout the state, usually for smaller streams that are not normally sampled.
About 30 RAMS stations are monitored regularly for a period of two years after which
they are retired and new random stations are selected.
The NPDES Coalition Monitoring Program is a voluntary, discharger -led, ambient
monitoring program that provides an effective and efficient means for assessing water
quality in a watershed context. A monitoring coalition is a group of NPDES dischargers
that combine resources to collectively fund and perform an instream monitoring program
in lieu of performing the instream monitoring required by their individual NPDES permits.
The collaboration frequently reduces monitoring costs for an individual discharger by
sharing the burden across the coalition;
2) Development of the assessment methodology to describe how many exceedances of
water quality standards a waterbody can have for a particular pollutant within a specified
date range; and
3) Comparison of the water quality sampling data to the water quality standard using
the assessment methodology to determine if it is "impaired." Each monitored waterbody
5 https://deq nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-page/ecosystems-
branch/monitoring-coalition-pro gram

D-10
receives an assessment every two years. The assessment helps DWR use state resources
more efficiently by focusing our efforts on waters that need the most improvement.
2.5.5 TMDLs
The standards are used as water quality targets for the development of Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs). The TMDL Program6 is a federal program authorized under the
Clean Water Act to address waters that are not meeting water quality standards. A
TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can
receive and still meet water quality standards. The TMDL is then used to establish limits
on sources of the pollutant which are classified as either point sources (waste load
allocation) or nonpoint sources (load allocation).
Once a TMDL is approved by the EPA, the pollution limits calculated for the waste load
allocation (point sources) are enforced under the state NPDES program through
permitting. For example, in a waterbody with a TMDL, a wastewater treatment plant
may be required to implement additional treatment technology.
3. REGULATORY BASELINE
As part of the permanent rulemaking process, North Carolina General Statute 15013-19.1 requires
agencies to quantify to the "greatest extent possible" the costs and benefits to affected parties of a
proposed rule. To understand what the costs and benefits of the proposed rule changes would be to
regulated parties and the environment, it is necessary to establish a regulatory baseline for comparison.
For the purpose of this regulatory impact analysis, the baseline is comprised of the following:
■ the most current version of rules in Sections 15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200, and .0300 (effective
Nov 1, 2019); and
■ the in -stream target values (ITVs) for 1,4-dioxane, which are calculated from the translator
equations in Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0208, and which are enforced as standards in compliance
with Clean Water Act 40 CFR Part 131.11.
The current rules, which include narrative and numeric water quality standards, comprise the baseline for
comparing the relative costs and benefits of the updated standards; however, it should be noted that the
standards themselves do not have a direct impact on regulated parties or the environment. It is through
their application in permits (e.g., wastewater effluent limits, stormwater benchmarks) and waterbody
impairment assessments that their impact is realized. For this reason, this analysis takes into account how
the standards are currently being implemented in various regulatory programs and considers
implementation of the standards a part of the baseline.
6 https:Hdeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/modeling-assessment/tmdls

D-11
Other regulations and legal limitations that alleviate the impact of the proposed rule changes include:
• N.C. General Statute, Chapter 143, Article 21 which grants authority to DEQ and EMC to
administer federally- mandated environmental management programs; and
• Clean Water Act 40 CFR Part 131.
4. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS
The following tables contain summaries of each proposed rule change and its anticipated
economic and environmental impact. The only changes that are substantive are related to the
codification or revision of numeric standards. Those changes are discussed in greater detail in the
sections that follow. All other changes are technical in nature and will not impose an additional
burden on the regulated community, state agencies, or local governments.
Table 1: Summary of proposed changes to 15A NCAC 02B, Sectlon .0200
Rule
Proposed Change
Economic Impact
Environment
Ira act
15A NCAC 02B .0202
• Define ` Ientic" and `lotic."
None
No change
Definitions
• Refine "industrial discharge."
15A NCAC 02B .0205
• Codify existing ITV to a freshwater
None,
Likely indirect,
Standards for Toxic
standard for fish consumption fur 1,4-
long -tern benefit to
Substances and Temperature
dioxane.
human health*,
15A NCAC 02B .0211
• Revise aquatic fife freshwater standard
Potential but
Potential but
Fresh Surface Water Quality
for selenium.
unlikely small to
unlikely near -term
Standards for Class C Waters
significant cost to
direct benefit to
pevnitteesI
aquatic life; long-
term indirect benefit
likely t
• Revise aquatic life freshwater standard
Potential likely
Continues to prevent
for cadmium.
significant benefit
unacceptable
to permitteest
toxicity effects to
vatic fife,
• Revise aquatic life freshwater standard
Potential likely
At least equivalent
for cyanide.
significant benefit
environmental
to pennitteest
protection,
15A NCAC 02B .0212
• Codify existing ITV to a standard for
None,
Possible indvect,
resh Surface Water Quality
water supply waters for 1,4-diozane.
long-term benefit to
tandards for Class WS-I
human health* i
aters
15A NCAC 02B .0214
• Codify existing ITV to a standard for
None,
Possible indvcet,
resh Surface Water Quality
water supply waters for 1,4-diozane.
long -fern benefit fo
tandards for Class WS-B
human health* i
auss

D-12
15A NCAC 02B .0215
• Codify existing ITV to a standard for
Nonei
Possible indvect,
resh Surface Water Quality
water supply waters for 1,4-dioxane.
long-term benefit to
tandards for Class WS-III
human health* i
Waters
• Mmortechnical correction.
15A NCAC 02B .0216
• Codify existing FFV to a standard for
Nonei
Possible indvect,
resh Surface Water Quality
water supply waters for 1,4-dioxane.
long-term benefit to
tandards for Class WS-N
human health* i
aters
• Minortechnical correction.
15A NCAC 02B .0215
• Codify existing ITV to a standard for
Nonei
Possible indvect,
resh Surface Water Quality
water supply waters for 1,4-dioxane.
long-term benefit to
Standards for Class WS-V
human health* i
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0219
• Replace Fecal Coliform bacterial
Likely small net
Potential but
Fresh Surface Water Quality
indicator with E. cuff for counties in
benefit to the State,
unlikely ind at t,
standards for Class B Waters
Asheville Regional Office area.
private labs,
long-temr benefit to
vatic life,
15A NCAC 02B .0220
Minutes to prevent
,dal Salt Water Quality
• Revise aquatic fife saltwater standard for
unacceptable
Standards for Class SC
cadmium.
None
toxicity effects to
I
Waters
square life,
*There is an ongoing benefit to human health, but it cannot be attributed to the proposed rule change.
i The revised standards will be the foundation for impairment assessments. Ifassessments determine the need for a
TMDL, benefits and costs associated with the TMDL would be accounted for during future nulemaking.
Table 2: Summary of proposed changes to 15A NCAC 0211, Section .0300
Environment
Rule
Proposed Change
Economic Impact
Impact
15A NCAC 02B .0301
• Recognize tribal authority.
None
No change
lassificatious: General
15A NCAC 0213.0311
• Mmortechnical correction.
None
No change
Cape Fear River Basin
5. COST -BENEFIT ANALYSIS -- OVERVIEW
The purpose of this document is to examine the potential economic impacts (costs and benefits) of the
proposed surface water quality standards. Surface water quality standards are designed to define the
condition of waters that protect public and environmental health. The Clean Water Act requires these
standards to be based solely on science with no consideration of costs. Since the water quality standards
are developed to define an appropriate condition, the water quality standards regulations themselves do
not produce costs for the public. For this reason, federal water quality criteria promulgated under the
Clean Water Act generally do not have an accompanying fiscal analysis conducted before criteria
adoption. Consequently, there is no federal fiscal analysis to provide costfbenefit information on the
proposed state rule changes addressed in this document.
Costs and benefits are incurred, however, when state and federal regulatory programs use the standards
to implement their own rules. The potential impacts from the proposed standards are examined by
parameter in Sections 6 through 10. Impacts to human health and the environment are considered in

D-13
Section 11. Section 12 considers challenges associated with incorporating environmental justice
reviews into regulatory impact analyses. Alternatives to the proposed changes are presented in Section
13.
6. 1,4-DIOXANE
6.1 Rule Citations
15A NCAC 02B .0208(a)(2)(B)(xviii) -- Standards for Toxic Substances and Temperature
15A NCAC 02B .0212(3)(g)(xvii) -- Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-I Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0214(3)(g)(xvii) -- Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-II Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0215(3)(g)(xvii) -- Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-III Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0216(3)(g)(xvii) -- Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-IV Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0218(3)(g)(xvii) -- Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-V Waters
6.2 Proposed Change
DEQ is proposing to codify as numeric water quality standards the existing calculated human
health criteria for 1,4-dioxane that are derived from 15A NCAC 02B .0208. These existing human
health criteria can also be referred to as "in -stream target values" (ITVs). Both of these ITVs have
been in place since about 2010. Values were based on the EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) carcinogenicity risk assessment completed in 2010. IRIS is a database of assessed
toxicity values for human health effects resulting from chronic exposure to chemicals. DEQ's
proposed numeric water quality standards for 1,4-dioxane (and current ITVs) use a 1 in 1,000,000
cancer risk level for the protection of the following designated uses:
0.35 µg/L in water supply waters for fish consumption + drinking water exposure; and
80 µg/L in all other surface waters for fish consumption exposure.
15A NCAC 02B .0208 provides the narrative water quality standard for toxic substances and
includes an equation for translating the narrative standard to a numeric value or in -stream target
value. The narrative water quality standard for toxic substances and the corresponding equations
used to translate that narrative standard are critical to addressing substances that do not have
individual numeric water quality standards and are supported by federal regulations. The ITVs
calculated from using the translator equations in 15A NCAC 02B .0208(a) are implemented and
enforced as standards in NPDES permits.
The narrative standards, including the translator equations for interpreting that narrative standard,
were most recently approved by the EPA in April 2020. The EMC and DEQ have the authority to
control toxins in surface water where no numeric water quality standard has been adopted under
N.C.G.S. 143-211, Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0208, and the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR Part 131.11.
https://www.epa.gov/iris

D-14
ITVs are calculated in accordance with models and other factors authorized by the EPA and
specified in Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0208.
ITVs are used in DEQ regulatory programs for calculating water quality -based effluent limits
(WQBELs) for NPDES wastewater permitting and establishing benchmark monitoring values for
NPDES industrial stormwater permitting. Effluent limits are subject to Clean Water Act
requirements and NPDES regulations related to anti -backsliding$. ITVs are also used as standards
by Division of Waste Management programs to ensure that discharges or spills from solid waste,
inactive hazardous waste and underground storage tank sites do not violate surface water quality
standards. Note that there is an existing groundwater quality standard for 1,4-dioxane in Rule 15A
NCAC 02L .0202; the groundwater standard falls outside the authority of the Clean Water Act and
is not being changed as a result of this rulemaking. A list of ITVs can be found on the DEQ
website: https:Hdeg.nc.gov/documents/nc-stdstable-06102019. For the substances addressed in
this analysis, 1,4-dioxane is the only substance for which there is an ITV.
6.3 Rationale
DEQ is proposing to codify the current in -stream target values for 1,4-dioxane for all surface
waters for the protection of human health through consumption of fish and for all Class WS waters
to protect drinking water supplies and fish consumption combined. This proposal is based on
several factors: 1) 1,4-dioxane has been identified as a Contaminant of Emerging Concern in
North Carolina surface waters, some of which are sources of drinking water; 2) there is
considerable public concern about its potential adverse impact on human health; and 3) although
1,4-dioxane is already being regulated via DEQ permitting programs, codification of 1,4-dioxane
as a standard will allow water bodies to be assessed and, if appropriate, listed as impaired. This
can ultimately lead to the development of TMDLs that compel broader regulatory protections and
corrective actions.
1,4-dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical that was historically used as a stabilizer of
chlorinated solvents in the manufacture of chemicals and as a laboratory reagent. It is also found
as a by-product in some personal care products, laundry detergents, paint strippers, dyes, greases,
and antifreeze. It is used as a purifying agent in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, and it is a
byproduct in the manufacture of PET plastic.
1,4-dioxane can enter the environment where it is produced or used as a solvent. It is of particular
concern in surface water because it is very stable and does not degrade rapidly over time. Human
exposure to 1,4-dioxane in surface waters can occur by drinking water obtained from
contaminated surface water supplies and through consumption of fish caught in contaminated
surface waters.9
8 https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pwm_chapt_07.pdf
9 hlt2s://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfactsl87.pdf

D-15
The EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as a likely human carcinogen.10 Low level exposure to 1,4-
dioxane over a person's lifetime can increase the risk of cancer. Higher exposures over a shorter
amount of time can damage cells in the liver and kidney. This damage limits the ability of those
organs to work properly.
In October 2014, DWR initiated a study'' of 1,4-dioxane in waters of the Cape Fear River Basin
with the objective of identifying potential sources, understanding changes in concentrations, and
collecting data to aid in the development of a rulemaking strategy. Results from the study's first
year indicated four primary areas of elevated 1,4-dioxane in the upper portion of the Cape Fear
River basin. Three of these areas were located immediately downstream of wastewater treatment
plants, indicating that discharges from these facilities may be conduits for 1,4-dioxane. The fourth
was located further downstream from a treatment plant, so potential local sources will also be
explored as the study continues.
Potential sources of 1,4-dioxane the study is examining include:
o Domestic and industrial point -source discharges;
o Active and inactive hazardous waste facilities;
o Active and inactive landfills;
o Pre -regulatory landfills;
o Known 1,4-dioxane contaminated groundwater plumes;
o Wastewater outfalls from groundwater remediation sites;
o Permitted non -discharge facilities;
o Airports;
o Brownfields; and
o Manufactured gas plants.
One of the preliminary conclusions from the study is that the most significant contributions of 1,4-
dioxane to ambient surface water concentrations were coming from wastewater effluent
originating from sources upstream of wastewater treatment facilities. It was concluded that 1,4-
dioxane is likely being discharged into industrial waste streams and passing through treatment
facilities which have treatment processes with varying levels of removal efficiency prior to
entering surface waters. DEQ continues to examine the Cape Fear River Basin and has begun
similar studies in the Neuse and Yadkin River Basins.
6.4 Anticipated Impacts (1,4-dioxane)
Upon completion of the triennial review process, the 1,4-dioxane standard will apply to all
freshwaters of the state with a lower value applied to waters used as public water supplies.
Anticipated impacts to affected parties are discussed in the following sub -sections.
6.4.1 NPDES Wastewater Dischargers
io hlWs:Hcfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris documents/documents/toxreviews/0326tr.pdf
ii hlWs://deq nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-page/1-4-dioxane

D-16
The proposed standards for 1,4-dioxane will replace the existing ITVs and continue to be
implemented through a subset of individual National Pollutant Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater permits as water -quality based effluent limits (WQBELs). The
codification of the 1,4-dioxane standard will not alter the approach to setting permit limits
for this parameter: water quality -based limits will continue to be based on Reasonable
Potential Analyses. Nor will it result in any additional costs associated with monitoring
since facilities with individual permits are already conducting effluent monitoring for 1,4-
dioxane as required in their permits. It is worth noting that there could be future impacts to
NPDES wastewater dischargers if waterbodies are assessed as impaired for 1,4-dioxane,
resulting in the development of a TMDL compliance strategy that places additional
requirements on dischargers. It is likely such requirements would be implemented through
rule. Costs associated with carrying out the TMDL would be accounted for at the time of
rulemaking.
NPDES wastewater staff reported that there are no general that require monitoring
or have limits for 1,4-dioxane. They also reported that, of the approximate total 1,094
active individual NPDES wastewater permits (includes 114 pretreatment programs), there
are a total of 18 active individual permits which have either limits or monitoring
requirements for 1,4-dioxane. Note that for purposes of this analysis, we make the
conservative assumption that all limits are water quality based (WQBELs) and not
technology based (TBELS). This means that the actual number of permits potentially
impacted by changes to the standard is likely lower than reported here. Of those 18
permits, only 1 has limits; the remaining 17 have monitoring only. There is an additional
permit for a municipal POTW that is currently in draft form that will convert an existing
`monitoring only' requirement to a `limit.' A list of facilities with 1,4-dioxane
requirements is included in Appendix II.
As discussed in Section 6.3, 1,4-dioxane is an emerging contaminant of concern in North
Carolina, so it is not surprising that relatively few NPDES permits currently have
requirements for 1,4-dioxane. North Carolina began adding 1,4-dioxane monitoring
requirements to NPDES permits in 2018; as such, there is not a long history of water
quality data on which to base a WQBEL. Because of the potential impacts to human
health, it seems likely that monitoring requirements will be added to additional NPDES
permits at renewal. We do not have data at this point to suggest whether or not WQBELS
are likely to be added to a significant number of permits in the future. These permit
modifications would occur whether or not the existing 1,4-dioxane ITV is codified.
NPDES staff anticipate that if WQBELS for 1,4-dioxane are incorporated into more
permits, schedules of compliance (SOCs) will also be incorporated. SOCs allow permitted
facilities a prescribed time to get their treatment system into operation and capable of
meeting water quality standards (via permit limits). SOC timelines are typically five years
or fewer (within one permit cycle). Staff anticipate SOCs will be common due to the high
cost of treatment technology. As 1,4-dioxane is an emerging contaminant of concern,

D-17
municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities are generally not equipped to remove it
through their treatment processes. Due to the high aqueous solubility and resistance of 1,4-
dioxane to biodegradation, conventional treatment processes are generally ineffective at
removal . Installation and operation of advanced treatment processes, such as those using
hydrogen peroxide, ozone and/or ultra -violet photo -oxidation -- all known to be effective
for 1,4-dioxane removal at either wastewater treatment facilities or drinking water systems
-- are anticipated to be prohibitively expensive for local governments and the citizens
served by public utilities (Ibis). Therefore, the most prudent approaches to reducing 1,4-
dioxane concentrations in surface water and drinking water are likely to be reduction,
elimination and/or capture and treatment at industrial sources using or generating 1,4-
dioxane, if possible.
The single NPDES permit that currently has 1,4-dioxane limits is an automotive products
manufacturer. Its permit limit for 1,4-dioxane is 80 ug/L, which is equivalent to the ITV
and proposed standard for non-WS waters.
Of the 17 permits that require monitoring of 1,4-dioxane but do not have limits:
■ 6 are publicly -owned treatment works (POTWs);
■ 3 are chemical manufacturers;
■ 2 are groundwater remediation sites;
■ 1 is a nuclear fuel manufacturer;
■ 1 is an industrial and commercial WWTP with multiple types of waste streams;
■ 2 are synthetic fiber and materials manufacturers;
■ 1 is a biomanufacturer; and
■ 1 is a fiber optics manufacturer.
Compared to the regulatory baseline for 1,4-dioxane — which is comprised of the existing
in -stream target values -- there should not be additional costs to existing or future NPDES
wastewater permittees and no change in health and environmental benefits as a direct result
of the codification of the ITVs into the NC administrative code. The proposed rule will
reflect the requirements and processes already being enforced. For this reason, we did not
attempt to monetize costs or benefits for 1,4-dioxane. However, it is worth acknowledging
that the ongoing costs and benefits associated with the monitoring and treatment of 1,4-
dioxane are likely to be considerable. Unfortunately, we have very limited data upon
which to expand on this topic as DEQ began incorporating 1,4-dioxane into permits only
recently. There is not yet enough monitoring data to allow for a meaningful examination
of water quality trends, or to make predictions about which permittees may be converted
from `monitoring only' to `limits' or have monitoring requirements removed all together.
As of this writing, DEQ is continuing to gather information on costs associated with
implementation of 1,4-dioxane ITVs. This data was not available in time to be included in
this document. DEQ is also continuing to conduct fish tissue studies in several river basins
12 Zenker, M.J., Borden, R.C., Barlaz, M.A. 2003. Occurrence and treatment of 1,4-dioxane in aqueous environments.
Environmental Engineering Science 20 (5), 423-432. http://online.lieber!pub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109287503768335913

D-18
to better understand the distribution of 1,4-dioxane throughout the waters of the state.
These types of information will allow for a more robust understanding of the potential total
health and environmental benefits and economic costs from monitoring and treatment of
this contaminant in the future.
6.4.2 NPDES Industrial Stormwater Dischargers
Stormwater staff with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR)
confirmed that there are no NPDES stormwater general permits with 1,4-dioxane
monitoring requirements. Staff estimated that there are currently fewer than five NPDES
stormwater individual permits that require monitoring for 1,4-dioxane. These facilities are
associated with wood preservation and pulping. The stormwater benchmark for these
individual permittees is based on in -stream standards for human health exposures, but it is
not based directly on the existing ITV for 1,4-dioxane. Staff confirmed that codification of
the ITV would not compel them to revise their current benchmark; nor would it require
1,4-dioxane to be added to additional permits. The Stormwater Program could be
indirectly affected in the future if waterbodies to which permittees are discharging are
listed as impaired for 1,4-dioxane. Should that occur, permitted facilities would be
evaluated on a case -by -case basis if there is reason to suspect that legacy pollutants at a
particular site are contributing to the impairment. Depending on the outcome of that
evaluation, additional stormwater control measures or monitoring could be required. The
costs and benefits of these potential stormwater control requirements would be addressed
in a separate rulemaking and analysis.
6.4.3 DWR Groundwater Protection Program
Administered by DWR, the Groundwater Protection Program primarily uses the
groundwater standards for remediating sites in which hazardous waste was disposed of by
injecting it into underground wells, a practice that is now prohibited. The surface water
standards are used for classifying the risk level of discharges to surface water intercepts
and for monitoring those surface waters during the remediation process. There are very
few hazardous waste injection well sites still under DWR oversight. In total, DWR
administers about 30 groundwater protection permits, 14 of which are coal ash sites. The
most common parameters monitored under these types of permits are nitrates, dissolved
solids, chloride, pH, metals and occasionally volatile organics, pesticides, and semi-
volatiles. DWR Groundwater Protection staff report that they do not expect
any impact from the proposed codification of the 1,4-dioxane ITV on parties regulated
under DWR's Groundwater Protection Program. Monitoring of intercepted surface waters
at these sites for contaminants of concern will continue to be required regardless of the
proposed change, and these sites will continue to be managed so as to prevent violations of
the surface water standards.
Similarly, staff with DWR's Non -Discharge program and Animal Feeding Operations
program confirmed that they do not anticipate any economic impact to their permittees
from the proposed changes to any of the surface water standards, including 1,4-dioxane.

D-19
6.4.4 NC Division of Waste Management
The Division of Waste Management (DWM) was contacted for information about the
sites they monitor and regulate under multiple programs. Staff reported that they do not
anticipate that any of their sites will be impacted by the proposed change to the 1,4-
dioxane standard.
Solid Waste — The Solid Waste program is currently enforcing the ITVs for 1,4-
dioxane at their sites; as such they do not expect a financial impact from the
proposed change.
Inactive Hazardous Waste — 1,4-dioxane is monitored in surface water at these
sites if 1) it is a known contaminant in the groundwater discharge and it is
possible that the discharge could intercept surface waters; or 2) if there is
evidence of spillage such that a broader range of testing is warranted. 1,4-
dioxane is generally only an analyte at sites with certain chlorinated solvents
where it was used as a preservative or where it was used as a known solvent
itself. While chlorinated solvents are a common contaminant at these types of
sites, staff are not aware of any particular sites where 1,4-dioxane has been
found in high enough concentration and in close enough proximity to cause a
surface water quality standard violation.
Underground Storage Tanks — The UST Section reports that they do not test for
1,4-dioxane as it is not expected to be contained in petroleum.
Hazardous Waste — Hazardous Waste staff report that they have few sites with
exceedances of any 02B surface water quality standards. They do not expect an
impact from the proposed revisions.
6.4.5 303(d) Impairment and TMDLs
DWR anticipates that the main impact from the proposed codification of the ITVs for 1,4-
dioxane will be the possibility for assessment of waterbodies as impaired for 1,4-dioxane
under Section 303(d). There are currently no waterbodies listed as impaired for 1,4-
dioxane. In the future, waterbodies will be assessed based on the 1,4-dioxane water quality
standards. This assessment will be rolled into DWR's existing 303(d) Listing and
Delisting Methodology13 which is the framework used by the DWR to interpret data and
information to determine whether a waterbody is meeting water quality standards.
Assessment takes place every two years and includes the toxic substances for which there
are water quality standards. This will not require additional expenditure, distribution or
reallocation of State funds.
Following assessment, it is possible that waterbodies could be listed as impaired for 1,4-
dioxane. There would not be direct impacts as a result of the listing itself. The listing of a
waterbody as impaired may eventually result in the development of a TMDL. Once
approved by the EMC and EPA, the TMDL may require actions to be taken by
13 hit2s:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%200uality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2020/2020-Listing-Methodology-approved.pdf

DA
stakeholders to reduce inputs of 1,4-dioxane into surface waters. It is likely such
requirements would be implemented through role. Costs and benefits associated with
carrying out the TMDL and associated roles would be accounted for at the time of
rulemaking.
6.4.6 DWR Ambient Monitoring Program
114dioxane is currently a part of DEQ's developing emerging compounds program and is
sampled at stations across several study areas of the state, including the Cape Fear, Neuse,
and Yadkin River Basins. DEQ anticipates that sampling locations for 1,4dioxane could
be adapted as needed to provide data for NPDES or other programs that are seeking to
identify sources or document reductions. In the future, it may become part of DWR's
Ambient Monitoring Program. None of these efforts are a result of the current proposal to
codify the 1,4-dioxane standard; as such, there should be no budgetary impact to DEQ.
7. SELENIUM
7.1 Rule Citation
15A NCAC 02B .0211(11)(d) -- Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters
7.2 Proposed Change
North Carolina has an existing surface water quality standard for selenium in freshwater of 5 on
total recoverable selenium per liter for Class C waters. This water quality standard was adopted by
the EMC on October 1, 1989 and is based on EPA's 1987 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Selenium. DEQ is proposing to replace the existing standard with the following standard
composed of four parts -- two of which are based on concentration ("magnitude") of selenium in
fish tissue, and two of which are based on concentration of selenium in the water column:
Table 3: Proposed standard for selenium (dissolved, chronic)
Component
Magnitude
Duration
Fish egg/
15.1 mg/kg
Instantaneous
ovary tissue
Fish issue
Fish whole
body or
muscle tissue
8.5 mg/kg
whole body
Instantaneous
11.3 mg/kg
Instantaneous
muscle
Water
1.5 ugd lenuc
30-day average
column
Lenuc or Louc
3.1 ugd 1phC
30-day average

D-57
pursue certification; as such, we did not attempt to monetize potential benefits from
certification. It may be reasonable to assume, however, that commercial labs that gain
certification for E. coli would realize long-term net benefits if they acquire new clients as a
result of the additional certification.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
Regulations aimed at environmental protection provide a wide range of benefits to the public.
Environmental protections can provide both economic benefits and, indirectly, human health benefits.
The proposed changes to the water quality standards are expected, at a minimum, to provide
mechanisms to:
prevent increased concentrations of selenium in surface waters;
allow for a more accurate and scientific assessment of the health of the state's aquatic habitats
for selenium, cadmium, cyanide, and pathogenic indicators; and
increase the potential for the formal assessment of water bodies for 1,4-dioxane impairment,
which could lead to the development of TMDLs that compel broader regulatory protections
and corrective actions that result in increased human health protections over ongoing
regulatory actions.
We expect the largest proportion of benefits from the proposed rule changes will be to aquatic life.
Benefits could be in the form of reduced mortality for aquatic organisms, improved reproductive
success of aquatic organisms, increased diversity of aquatic organisms; and improved conditions for
successful recovery of threatened and endangered species. As a result of the improvement to aquatic
life, secondary benefits could be realized in the form of enhanced recreational and commercial
activities, including fishing. Other secondary benefits could result in the form of reduced human
exposure to pollutants and increased economic development opportunities.
Adopting the updated EPA NRWQC for selenium, cadmium, cyanide, and pathogenic indicators will
allow for a more accurate and scientific assessment of the health of the state's aquatic habitats.
Accurate determination of attainment of designated uses should allow DEQ and other stakeholders to
tailor protections and corrective actions to better address the source of a problem or potential threat to
water quality, such as with targeted reductions in metals concentrations from identified anthropogenic
sources. We were unable to monetize benefits associated with more accurate attainment determination,
but its importance should not be discounted.
Other potential benefits that can be expected as a result of the proposed standards change include
nonuse benefits. Nonuse benefits refer to benefits that people receive from the existence of an
environmental feature independent of people's current resource use. For example, some people value
protection of coastal waters even if they may never visit the beach. Nonuse benefits include bequest,
existence, and ecological preservation values.
Bequest value of a natural resource is the value people place on being able to provide future
generations with a pristine natural resources.

D-58
Existence benefits occur when people value a resource or natural feature maintained in its
current condition. An example of existence value is the substantial amount of money directed
to conservation groups for land preservation.
Ecological preservation is the protection of an entire ecology or system of plants and animals
and their physical habitats. Strong ecosystems preserve biodiversity, making organisms more
resistant to environmental stresses.
Nonuse benefits are difficult to value since they lack traditional markets, but these values can be
significant. This fiscal analysis does not attempt to monetize nonuse values of cleaner water; however,
this benefit does exist and should be taken into account when policy decisions are made.
Additional benefits specific to each parameter are discussed in more detail in the following sub-
sections.
11.1 Selenium
Although our Reasonable Potential Analyses for 8 of 35 permits that have limits or monitoring
requirements for selenium did not indicate that there would be impacts from the revised
standard, we cannot absolutely rule out that there could be impacts to these or the remaining 27
permits from the revised standard. For this reason, there is a possibility that there could be
additional water quality improvements not accounted for in this analysis.
It is likely, however, that a majority of permits would at least receive revised water -quality
based effluent limits. Although no changes in permit requirements, facility operations, or
discharges are expected in the near term as a result of the new limits, the standard upon which
they are based is more reflective of the current science on selenium toxicity to aquatic life. In
effect, this should better equip DEQ and facilities to protect aquatic life biodiversity by
detecting any future problem with selenium in effluent earlier which will, in turn, promote an
earlier response from facilities. Earlier intervention by the facility has the potential to prevent
water quality degradation and perhaps allow the facility to avoid costly treatment requirements
in the future.
Whether implemented as WQBELs or used to perform more accurate waterbody assessments,
the proposed changes to the selenium water quality standard could aid efforts to stabilize and/or
enhance species biodiversity in state waters. The concept of biodiversity reflects the benefits of
maintaining and protecting a wide range of aquatic habitats, a wide range of organisms in those
habitats and a large enough population of individual organisms to ensure genetic diversity and
allow organism adaptation. Aquatic biodiversity has been shown to provide many valuable
goods and services that benefit humans — some of which are considered to be irreplaceable.26
"Covich, A.P. Ewel, K.C., Hall, R.O., Giller, P.E., Goedkoop, W., and Merritt, D.M. (2004). Ecosystem services
provided by freshwater benthos. In Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Soil and Sediments (ed. D.H.
Wall), pp.45-72. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

D-59
Reduced water pollution and healthier aquatic ecosystems may translate to higher catch rates
and increased commercial fishing productivity in North Carolina. Metals contamination of soft
bottom habitat is an ongoing threat to commercial fisheries. Soft bottom habitat is
unconsolidated, unvegetated sediment that occurs in freshwater, estuarine, and marine systems.
Soft bottom habitat is a key foraging habitat for juvenile and adult fish and invertebrates and
aids in storing and cycling of sediment, nutrients, and toxins between the bottom and water
column. Shallow, unvegetated bottom is particularly productive and, by providing refuge from
predators, is an important nursery area. A reduction in metals -contaminated soft bottom habitat
can result in significant avoided costs to commercial fisheries.
A reduction in the concentration of selenium, as well as the prevention of future increases of
selenium concentration, in surface waters would provide a direct ecological benefit to aquatic
ecosystems and may indirectly benefit human uses as well (for example, by aiding in the
recovery of fishery resources).
11.2 Cadmium
We expect that the changes to the cadmium standard will continue to prevent unacceptable
toxicity effects to aquatic organisms, even if the proposed changes reduce regulatory burden. To
understand how changes to an existing standard for the protection of aquatic life can provide
regulatory relief without resulting in negative impacts to that aquatic life, it is helpful to
understand how EPA derives its water quality criteria.
EPA water quality include magnitude, duration, and frequency components. These components
estimate the rate (frequency) at which in -stream contaminant concentrations, as averaged over a
specified period of time (duration), can be above a numeric threshold (magnitude) in a
waterbody without resulting in unacceptable effects to aquatic organisms in a waterbody. It is
important to note that the criteria are intended to protect most, but not necessarily all, aquatic
organisms at all times. That is to say, adverse effects may result from temporary excursions
above the numeric threshold; however, the degree to which those adverse effects occur should
not reach a level that is considered unacceptable, as defined by the criteria.
As the EPA periodically re-evaluates existing National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
(NRWQC), new toxicity information may become available that leads to a better understanding of
the relationships between aquatic organisms and the toxic effects of a contaminant. This may lead
to the publishing of new NRWQC that provide a more appropriate numeric threshold value.
For example, the existing cadmium chronic water quality standard for the protection of freshwater
aquatic life is based on the 2001 EPA NRWQC which incorporated toxicity data from 65 species
in 55 genera. Figure 1 provides a summary of the toxicity data, ranked by organism sensitivity,
used in the 2001 NRWQC chronic cadmium evaluation.

D-60
Figure 1: Summary of ranked chronic toxicity response data (Source: EPA, 2001)
Chronic Toxicity of Cadmium to Aquatic Animals
10�
d
10
0 ■
�M. ■ q Saltwater Final Chronic Value = 8.8 pg+L dissolved cadmium -
Qi o
a
j 1
v
•� °
O °
L
Vfl.1. Freshwater Final Chronic Value =0.15 pg1L dissolved cadmium Q 50 mglL total hardness
0.01
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
El Freshwater Invertebrate
% Rank Genus Mean Chronic Value w Freshwater Fish
A Saltwater Invertebrate
Each point in the distribution represents toxicity sensitivity data (chronic value or effect
concentration) as a geometric mean from studies of groups of organisms in related genera. The
horizontal line titled "Freshwater Final Chronic Value" is the protective threshold for cadmium
(0.15 ug/L) as calculated per EPA guidance documents and normalized to 50 mg/L hardness.
In 2016, EPA published an updated evaluation of the cadmium data that incorporated toxicity data
for 75 new species and 49 new genera. This updated data allowed for a recalculation of the
criterion resulting in a more precise protective threshold value as compared to the 2001 document.
Figure 2 provides a summary of the 2016 ranked toxicity data as well as the freshwater "Final
Chronic Value" (0.79 ug/L) normalized to 100 mg/L hardness.

D-61
Figure 2: Summary of ranked chronic toxicity response data (Source: EPA, 2016)
Summary of Ranked Cadmium GMCVs
1oa Freshwater
■ b
J
1
� Q Q Q Q ■ Q
O ■
10 Q ■
C
U
V
C
U ♦ ♦ O
� O
u ♦
E ■
7 1 Final Chronic Value =0.74 ug/L tota I tad m i u m (at hardness = 100mg/L as CaC43)
E Li
10
V
0
on 1 14 s 06 0.7 0.3 0.9 1.0
Genus Mean Chronic Values
❑Invertebra tes ■ Irnrertebra tes -new
(Cumulative Fraction) 0Fish ♦Fish - new
O Mollusks • M ollusks - new
The additional data in the 2016 evaluation indicates that the most sensitive freshwater species can
tolerate higher concentrations of cadmium than previously thought before exhibiting signs of
chronic toxicity. Compared to Figure 1, the four most sensitive organism groups in Figure 2 have
changed, both in the organism distribution and in the degree of sensitivity. In the 2001 evaluation,
two groups of freshwater invertebrates represented the two most sensitive organism groups
followed by a large gap in sensitivity before the third most sensitive group of organisms appears
(represented by a group of freshwater fish). In the 2016 evaluation, however, while the most
sensitive organism group is still represented by a freshwater invertebrate, the second and third
most sensitive organism groups are now represented by a freshwater fish and a freshwater mollusk
(a new genera), respectively. Also, due to the incorporation of additional toxicology data, the
estimated sensitivity of the most sensitive organism group has decreased, resulting in a higher
chronic effect concentration than that reported in 2001. This same additional toxicity information
also leads to the slightly higher protective threshold value (criterion) provided in the 2016 criteria
document.
Even though the 2016 cadmium chronic criterion is greater (less stringent) than the current NC
chronic freshwater standard, 0.25 ug/L vs. 0.15 ug/L (calculated at 25 mg/L hardness),
respectively, the additional toxicity information used in the derivation of the 2016 criterion has
provided a greater degree of confidence that the 2016 criteria better achieves the goal of

D-62
preventing unacceptable levels of toxicity in NC waters without creating undue burdens. In other
words, the change to the numeric criteria represents a change in the degree of confidence in the
derived criteria itself; it will not result in unacceptable toxicity effects to aquatic organisms.
11.3 Cyanide
Similar to cadmium, we expect that the change to the cyanide standard will continue to provide at
least an equivalent level of environmental protection, even if the proposed changes reduce
regulatory burden. Free cyanide comprises only a portion of all cyanide that may exist in surface
waters. The EPA NRWQC for free cyanide was based on toxicological and chemical data that
indicated that the more bioavailable and, therefore, more toxic form of cyanide is free cyanide
(cyanide that is not bound to organic or other matter in the water column). Since the existing
standard of 5 ug/L as total cyanide provides a protective threshold that is more stringent
(overprotective) than the toxicological and chemical information used to develop the threshold as
free cyanide would warrant, the proposed modification of the existing standard does not result in
an environmental impact. In other words, by modifying the existing standard to include analysis
as free cyanide, the resulting protective threshold is being set to what was intended by the 1985
EPA NRWQC.
11.4 1,4-Dioxane
The proposed codification of the 1,4-dioxane standard could contribute to the ongoing protection
of human health by increasing the potential for the formal assessment of water bodies for 1,4-
dioxane impairment. Impairment could lead to the development of a TMDL that compels broader
regulatory protections and corrective actions that result in increased human health protections.
The importance of this benefit is underscored by the fact that 1,4-dioxane is classified by EPA as a
likely human carcinogen. While the benefits to human health associated with the regulation of
1,4-dioxane in wastewater, stormwater, and waste management permits are likely quite
substantial, we do not provide monetary estimates in this document as these benefits are ongoing
(as ITVs) and are not a result of the current proposed action. However, we recognize the
importance of regulating 1,4-dioxane in the environment and want to emphasize the significance
of formalizing the ITV into the rules.
11.5 E. coli
Information provided by a regional environmental advocacy group suggests E. coli using the
Colilert method would be a more accessible test and provide a modest cost savings over using
fecal coliform with membrane filtration. This savings may allow them to expand their sampling
efforts. If there is increased sample collection, it could allow more precise determination of
waterbody impairment.
The Division believes the proposed changes will maintain surface water protections in the short term,
protect against potential future water quality degradation, and lay the groundwork for more accurate
impairment designations and associated protective measures in the long term. However, it is not
possible to determine the absolute improvement in water quality that will result from the revised

D-63
standards with the available data. Therefore, the expected environmental benefits cannot be monetized
for purposes of this analysis. The State will not receive the full value of the rule changes until the
revised standards are incorporated into permits, affected facilities upgrade wastewater treatment
facilities (if applicable), waterbodies are assessed against the new standards, and aquatic communities
respond to the positive changes in the form of reduced mortality, improved reproduction, and enhanced
biodiversity.
12. INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INTO RIM
DEQ's mission is to "provide science -based environmental stewardship for the health and prosperity of all
North Carolinians." One of the ways DWR fulfills this mission is during rulemaking, where DWR is
required to consider the economic impacts of proposed regulations to potentially affected parties. The
resulting document is called a Regulatory Impact Analysis, or RIA — an example of which you are reading
right now.
An RIA is a tool used to identify, quantify, monetize, and communicate the anticipated effects of the
proposed rule. It is a structured evaluation of the costs and benefits of regulation. The RIA informs
decision -making, improves rule design, promotes transparency, and conveys information about potential
impacts. The RIA may include impacts on time, expenditures, revenue, savings, efficiencies, public
health, and ecosystem services and remediation.
One area that DWR is currently working to improve upon -- and which is in direct support of our mission
to provide stewardship for ALL North Carolinians -- is to intentionally and systematically integrate
socioeconomic, race and ethnicity considerations into the RIA process. These components come under
the umbrella of "environmental justice." The U.S. EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.
DWR is actively pursuing opportunities to advance our knowledge and practice in the area of
environmental justice through collaboration with area universities as well as with DEQ's Environmental
Justice Program 27. Through these collaborations, we are seeking information on the broader
considerations underlying incorporating environmental justice into rulemaking:
• How is social, economic, and environmental equity being incorporated into permitting, and can
that model be applied to the rulemaking process?
• Are there best practices that should be integrated into DWR's development of RIAS to identify and
account for equity?
• What resources exist to help DWR carry out robust examinations concerning equity during
rulemaking?
• How prevalent is implicit bias in external data sources that are used for evaluating cost -benefit
impacts of environmental regulation? For example, are low-income or minority communities
27 https://deq nc.gov/outreach-education/enviromnental-justice

D-64
systematically underrepresented in contingent valuation surveys, toxics release tracking databases,
or recreation trip estimates? Are there methods to account for this in an RIA?
Through an examination of past RIM, is it possible to identify commonalities among them? For
example, do we tend to undervalue benefits of proposed environmental regulation? Do we
undervalue costs associated with maintaining the status quo?
With future rulemakings, it is our goal to be able to address questions more targeted to a particular rule
change, such as:
• What are the demographics (race, economic status, geography) of the population exposed to or
affected by the problem the rule is intended to address? This information will inform policy/rule
decisions as well as outreach strategy during the public comment period.
• Is there a history of related issues in a particular community impacted by the proposed
rulemaking?
• What is the expected future distribution of impacts on environmental justice communities?
• How can the rule be designed to optimize its implementation in various communities? This would
presumably require early coordination during the rulemaking process with local governments in
impacted communities.
DWR did not have the resources available during development of this RIA to include a meaningful
environmental justice analysis, so we did not attempt to draw conclusions regarding impacts from the
proposed rule changes. However, we wanted to use this opportunity to convey our intention of
incorporating environmental justice analyses into future rulemakings. We anticipate consulting with the
DEQ Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Board28 to assist with recommendations on
environmental justice and equity issues raised during future rulemakings.
13. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
To provide additional context about how DEQ arrived at these particular recommendations, DEQ
analyzed multiple alternatives to the proposed rulemaking.
Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires that states and tribes evaluate and revise, as
necessary, water quality standards at least once every three years. As part of the Triennial Review
DEQ assessed EPA's revised NRWQC for numerous areas including scientific confidence, public
interest, feasibility of implementation, and potential to improve water quality as compared to current
permitting and regulatory baselines. Staff conducted a thorough review of the NRWQC and either
accepted or declined to recommend each criteria for rulemaking at this time. Each of these decisions
and their combinations can be considered an alternative to the proposed rulemaking.
DEQ concluded that each of the standards included in the proposed rulemaking should be adopted at
this time for the reasons that are discussed in the "Rationale" section for each parameter. Each of the
proposed standards will allow North Carolina to better protect human health and aquatic life, thereby
continuing to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act, or reduce undue regulatory burdens based
28 https://deq nc.gov/outreach-education/enviromnental justice/secretarys-enviromnental-justice-and-equity-board

D-65
on an updated understanding of aquatic life toxicity sensitivity. In addition, the potential benefits to
the environment, human health, regulated parties, and DEQ are expected to outweigh the potential
costs to regulated parties and DEQ for each parameter.
In addition to the parameters included in the proposed rulemaking, DEQ considered the following
parameters:
Aluminum (metal) — This NRWQC was published by EPA in December 2018. Adoption of this
criteria would be a new surface water quality standard that would apply to all Class-C freshwaters for
the protection of aquatic life. Staff concluded that adoption at this time is not recommended due
to uncertainty regarding the scientific basis of the criteria, how to best adapt the model used to
calculate the criteria, and whether its adoption as a standard would lead to water quality
improvements that justify the expense of implementation.
Apply E. coli recreational bacteria standard statewide — As discussed in Section 10, DEQ
considered the feasibility of applying the proposed E. coli recreational bacterial standard statewide
as opposed to limiting it to the 19 counties within the Asheville Regional Office area. In that
scenario, E. coli would replace fecal coliform as the water quality pathogen indicator for primary
recreation (Class B) waters across the state. This idea was rejected primarily due to the lack of
equipment, materials, laboratory space, and staffing resources needed at the DWR central
laboratory to analyze primary recreation samples for E. coli and secondary recreation samples for
fecal coliform bacteria. Also of concern is the number of commercial laboratories certified to run
E. coli analyses and those laboratories' capability to run E. coli and fecal coliform analyses
concurrently. In addition, there are numerous logistical challenges associated with administration
of DEQ permitting programs that currently use fecal coliform as their pathogen indicator.
• Acrolein (herbicide) — This would be a new surface water quality standard that would apply to all
Class C freshwaters for the protection of aquatic life. Staff concluded that adoption at this time is
not recommended due to uncertainty as to whether its adoption as a standard would lead to water
quality improvements that justify the expense of implementation.
Cyanotoxins — In 2019, EPA issued recommendations for water quality criteria and swimming
advisory values for two cyanotoxins. Algal blooms caused by cyanobacteria sometimes produce
cyanotoxins at concentrations that can be harmful to people participating in recreational water -
related activities such as swimming. Staff concluded that implementation of this standard would
be infeasible at this time, in part, due to expenses associated with outfitting the DWR laboratories
with equipment, space, and staffing to carry out the required analyses.
Ammonia — This would be a new surface water quality standard that would apply to all Class-C
freshwaters for the protection of aquatic life. Staff concluded that adoption at this time is not
recommended due to the uncertainty as to whether its adoption as a standard would result in water
quality improvements that justify the expense of implementation. Preliminary reviews suggest
that the majority of costs would be incurred by smaller wastewater system operators whose
contribution to ammonia levels in surface water is small in comparison to larger dischargers. In
addition, the NPDES wastewater program already implements an ammonia toxicity permitting

D-66
policy that is used for establishing ammonia permit limits.
Human health criteria calculations — EPA revised its human health criteria calculation matrix
which provides cancer potency factors, reference doses, relative source contributions, fish
consumption rates, and equations used to derive human health criteria. Staff concluded that
adoption of these revised criteria is premature due to low scientific confidence in some of the
variables and uncertainty about whether these changes would result in water quality improvements
that would justify additional costs to the regulated community.
As a whole, the adoption of these additional NRWQC as water quality standards would result in a
substantial impact to DEQ and the regulated community without reasonable assurance that such costs
would be justified by benefits to water quality or human health. For these reasons, DEQ is not
recommending that they be adopted as standards at this time.

D-67
APPENDIX I REFERENCES
1. For background information about water quality standards: https://www.epa.gov/standards-water-body-
health/what-are-water-quality-standards
2. For background information about EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria:
hllps://www.epa. ov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-tables.
3. For more in-depth information about water quality standards: EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook
hiips://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-qualily-standards-handbook.
4. For information about setting limits in NPDES wastewater permits and RPAs: Technical Support
Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control, EPA Document Number 505/2-90-001, March, 1991.
hllps://www3.epa. goy/npdes/pubs/owm0264.pdf
5. For information about NC DEQ Ambient Monitoring Program: https://deq.nc.aov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-page/ecosystems-branch/monitoring-coalition-
rp o rg_am
6. For information about NC DEQ TMDL assessment: h!Ws:Hdeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/tmdls
7. For information on effluent limitations and anti -backsliding. NPDES Permit Writers Manual- Chapter 7.
hllps://www3.epa.goy/npdes/pubs/pwm chapt 07.pdf
8. For information on toxic effects of exposure to 1,4-dioxane https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfactsI87.pdf
9. For information on carcinogen classification of 1,4-dioxane: US Environmental Protection Agency
(2010). Toxicological Review of 1,4- Dioxane.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris documents/documents/toxreviews/0326tr.pdf
10. For information on DEQ Cape Fear River Basin 1, 4-dioxane study:
https://deq.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-page/ 1-4-
dioxane.
11. For information on treatment processes for 1, 4-dioxane: Zenker, M.J., Borden, R.C., Barlaz, M.A. 2003.
Occurrence and treatment of 1,4-dioxane in aqueous environments. Environmental Engineering Science 20
(5), 423-432. http://online.liebegpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109287503768335913
12. For information about NC DEQ 303(d) Listing Methodology:
https://files.nc. gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303 d/2020/2020-Listing-Methodology-
gpproved.pdf
13. For information about EPA aquatic life criterion for selenium: https://www.epa. og v/wgc/aquatic-life-
criterion-selenium
14. For information on selenium levels in NC lakes: Jessica E. Brandt, Emily S. Bernhardt, Gary S. Dwyer,
Richard T. Di Giulio. Selenium Ecotoxicology in Freshwater Lakes Receiving Coal Combustion Residual
Effluents: A North Carolina Example. Environmental Science & Technology, 2017; Vol. 51, Issue 4,

D-68
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05353
15. For mapped selenium concentrations in soils: "Selenium in Counties of the East Central U.S."
https://mrdata.usgs. gov/geochem/doc/averages/se/east-central.httnl
16. For information on the sources of selenium to the environment:
https://pubs.us sg gov/gip/1802/g//ppl802q_pdf
17. For information on the U.S. EPA criterion for selenium: U.S. EPA Document # EPA 822-17-16-005
"Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium in Freshwater 2016 — Fact Sheet"
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/se 2016 fact sheet final.pdf
18. For information about the DEQ 2014 Triennial Review Fiscal Analysis:
h!Ltps://files.nc.gov/ncosbm/documents/files/DENRI 0082014.Pdf
19. For information on EPA cadmium water quality criterion:
https://www. epa. gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/cadmium-final-factsheet.pdf
20. For operation, maintenance and monitoring cost estimates for treatment of cadmium: DENR/DWR "2014
Fiscal and Economic Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to 15A NCAC 02B .0200 — The Triennial
Review of Surface Water Quality Standards and Classifications:
hllps://files.nc.gov/ncosbm/documents/files/DENRI0082014.2df
21. For information about Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide (EPA 440/5-84-028; January 1985)
22. For information about Quality Criteria for Water - 1976 (Red Book) (EPA 440-9-76-02)
23. For information about 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (EPA 820-F-12-058)
24. For information about the value of biodiversity in aquatic habitat: Covich, A.P. Ewel, K.C., Hall, R.O.,
Giller, P.E., Goedkoop, W., and Merritt, D.M. (2004). Ecosystem services provided by freshwater benthos.
In Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Soil and Sediments (ed. D.H. Wall), pp.45-72. Island
Press, Washington D.C., USA.
25. DENR/DWR "2014 Fiscal and Economic Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to 15A NCAC 02B
.0200 — The Triennial Review of Surface Water Quality Standards and Classifications:
https://files.nc. gov/ncosbm/documents/files/DENR I O082014.pdf
26. For information about willingness -to -pay surveys and valuing environmental change: Huber, Joel, W. Kip
Viscusi, and Jason Bell. 2006. "Economics of Environmental Improvement" EPA Cooperative Agreement
CR823604 and Grant R827423 to Harvard University with the National Center for Environmental
Economics. http://yosemite.epa. ovg /ee/epa/eerm.nsFvwAN/EE-0496-0l.pdf/$file/EE-0496-01.pdf
27. For information about NC DEQ's Environmental Justice Program: h!Ws:Hdeq.nc.gov/outreach-
education/environmental justice

D-69
Additional Resources
28. Information about treating 1,4-dioxane. Stepian, D.K., Diehl, P., Helm, J., Thomas, A. and Puttmann, W.
2014. Fate of 1,4-dioxane in the aquatic environment: From sewage to drinking water. Water Research 48,
406-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.09.057
29. Information on toxic effects of 1,4-dioxane: U.S. EPA "Technical Fact Sheet — 1,4-Dioxane" November
2017. hgps://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrro factsheet contaminant 14-
dioxane january2014 final.pdf
30. Background information about natural and anthropogenic sources of selenium: Stillings, L.L., 2017,
Selenium, chap. Q of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical
mineral resources of the United States —Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future
supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. Q1—Q55, hM2s:Hdoi.org/10.3133/�pl8O2Q.
31. Background information about a 1977 selenium poisoning event in Belews Lake: Lemly, A.D., 2002,
Symptoms and implications of selenium toxicity in fish —The Belews Lake case example: Aquatic
Toxicology, v. 57, nos. 1-2, p. 39-49. [Also available at http://dx.doi.ora/10.1016/SO166-445X(01)00
8.1
32. Information on selenium effects on Hyco Lake: Lemly, A.D., Skorupa, J.P., 2012. Wildlife and the coal
waste policy debate: proposed rules for coal waste disposal ignore lessons from 45 years of wildlife
poisoning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8595-8600.
33. Estimating the economic value of loss offish: Kopp, R.J., Smith, V.K., 1993. Valuing Natural Assets: The
Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
34. Estimating the economic value of loss offishery Sutton Lake: Lemly, A.D. 2014. Teratogenic effects and
monetary cost of selenium poisoning of fish in Lake Sutton, North Carolina. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety, Volume 104, Pages 160-167. [Also available at:
https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecoenv.2014.02.0221
35. Information about incorporating environmental justice into RIAs: Banzhaf, H. Spencer, Aug 2010.
Regulatory Impact Analyses of Environmental Justice Effects: Working Paper #10-08, National Center for
Environmental Economics. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
12/documents/re ug latory impact analyses of environmental justice effects.pdf

D-70
Appendix II.
NPDES wastewater permitted facilities with limits (WQBEL or TBEL) or monitoring for 1
dioxane
As of Jan. 2021
Permit Number
Owner and Facility Name
County Name
Monitoring
only?
NC0001112
Inv Performance Surfaces LLC - Invista Wilmington
New Hanover
Y
NC0001228
Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas LLC - GNF-A Wilmington -Castle Hayne WWTP
New Hanover
Y
NC0001899
Moncure Holdings West LLC - Moncure Holdings West WWTP
Chatham
Y
NC0003573
The Chemours Company Fc LLC - Chemours Company -Fayetteville Works
Bladen
Y
NC0003719
Dak Americas LLC - Cedar Creek Site
Cumberland
Y
NC0003794
Corning, Inc. - Wilmington Fiber Optic Facility
New Hanover
Y
NC0003875
Elementis Chromium Inc - Castle Hayne Plant
New Hanover
Y
NCO023868
City of Burlington - Eastside WWTP
Alamance
Y
NCO024147
City Of Sanford - Big Buffalo WWTP
Lee
Y
NCO024210
City of High Point - East Side WWTP
Guilford
Y
NCO024881
City of Reidsville - Reidsville WWTP
Rockingham
Y
NCO026123
City of Asheboro - Asheboro WWTP
Randolph
Y
NCO027065
Archer Daniels Midland Company - Southport Manufacturing Facility
Brunswick
Y
NCO047384
City of Greensboro - T.Z. Osborne WWTP
Guilford
Y
NCO080853
Nokia of America Corporation - Salem Business Park remediation site
Forsyth
Y
NCO082295
Fortron Industries LLC - Fortron Industries
New Hanover
Y
NCO083658
Daikin Applied Americas Inc - HeatCraft Groundwater Remediation Site
New Hanover
Y
NCO088838
Radiator Specialty Company - Radiator Specialty Company
Union

SOUTHERN 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
LAW
CENTER
December 15, 2022
VIA Electronic Mail
Gary Perlmutter
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Re: Southern Environmental Law Center Supplemental Comments on NPDES
Wastewater Draft Permit NC0024147, City of Sanford Big Buffalo WWTP
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
The Southern Environmental Law Center submits these supplemental comments on draft
NPDES Permit No. NCO024147 on behalf of Haw River Assembly and Cape Fear River Watch.
Since submitting our October 21, 2022 comments,' the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA") has issued guidance to state agencies "describ[ing] steps permit writers can implement
under existing authorities to reduce the discharge of PFAS."2 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance,
attached to this letter, makes clear that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
("the Department") cannot ignore Sanford's PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution and instead must
take meaningful steps to reduce toxic discharges before the chemicals further threaten drinking
water supplies downstream and across the state.3
Because the draft permit currently does not impose requirements to control industrial
sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution and because the draft does not contain effluent limits
for PFAS or 1,4-dioxane, despite the city informing the Department that the chemicals are
present in the wastewater treatment plant, it should be withdrawn.
I. The Department must require Sanford to utilize its pretreatment authority to
control PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.
In our prior comments, we emphasized that the pretreatment program offers cities like
Sanford a variety of tools to control pollution before it reaches the wastewater treatment plant.
1 See Letter from Hannah M. Nelson, Southern Env't L. Ctr. to Gary Perlmutter, Water Quality Permitting, N.C.
Dep't of Env't Quality (Oct. 21, 2022), [hereinafter "SELL October Comments"], provided as Attachment 1.
2 Memorandum from Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Addressing PFAS Discharges
in NPDES Permits and Through the Pretreatment Program and Monitoring Programs (December 5, 2022)
(emphasis added) [hereinafter " EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance"], provided as Attachment 2.
3 As we described in our October 21, 2022 comment letter, Sanford has plans to become a regional water hub and
intends to supply drinking water not only residents in Sanford, Lee County, and Chatham County but also to
communities in Pittsboro, Fuquay-Varina, and Holly Springs. See SELC October Comments, supra note 1 at 8-10.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

EPA's guidance makes clear that those tools can and should be used to control PFAS. Indeed,
EPA directs that permits issued to municipal wastewater treatment plants, like Sanford's,
"contain requirements to identify and locate all possible [industrial users]" that are "expected or
suspected for PFAS discharges. ,4 Once sources are identified, EPA recommends that
municipalities develop local limits for PFAS or impose best management practices to control the
pollution at the source. s Notably, while EPA's guidance focuses on PFAS, the same tools can
and should be used to address 1,4-dioxane. In light of this guidance, the Department should
impose a special condition in Sanford's discharge permit to require the municipality to identify
and control the PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution from its industrial sources.
In addition, EPA directs that municipal wastewater treatment plants "reduce the amount
of PFAS chemicals in biosolids," and recommends analyzing biosolids using draft method
1633.E If HAS are present in a municipality's sludge, it should implement best management
practices to control PFAS before the chemicals reach the wastewater treatment plant and ends up
in the city's sludge. Because Sanford land applies biosolids produced during the wastewater
treatment process,8 the Department should require that the city sample the sludge and, if it
discovers PFAS, adopt practices to reduce the concentrations of toxic chemicals entering the
city's wastewater treatment plant.
II. The Department must analyze and implement effluent limits for PFAS and
1,4-dioxane in Sanford's discharge permit.
EPA's guidance also acknowledges that compliance with state water quality standards is
relevant when assessing PFAS discharges. The guidance directs that a "permit writer should
apply" numeric or narrative water quality standards for HAS in their permitting decisions.9 As
the Department itself has recognized, North Carolina's toxic substances standard applies to
PFAS 10 and prohibits the discharge of the chemicals in excess of "the level necessary to protect
human health."11 The Department must therefore evaluate the information in Sanford's permit
application and determine whether Sanford's discharge will violate the toxic substances standard,
and, if it will, impose effluent limits protective of human health. While EPA's guidance is
focused on PFAS, the same permitting requirements apply to other toxic substances, like 1,4-
dioxane.12
If the Department needs more information to conduct the analysis necessary to set water
quality -based effluent limits, it must collect the relevant data during the permit application
process rather than wait for an undetermined time in the future. In its guidance, EPA made clear
4 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 2 at 4.
5 Id. at 4.
6 Id. at 5.
7 Id.
' See SELC October Comments, supra note 1 at 16.
9 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 2 at 4.
to Amended Complaint, North Carolina v. The Chemours Company, FC, LLC, 17 CVS 580 (Bladen Cnty. Super. Ct.
2018), at ¶ 152 (explaining that PFAS "meet the definition of `toxic substance' set forth in 15A N.C.A.C. 213
.0202").
" 15A N.C. Admin. Code. 213.0208(a)(2).
12 N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Div. Water Res., Surface Water Quality Standards, Criteria & In -Stream Target
Values (2019) (stating that the one -in -one million cancer risk for 1,4-dioxane is 0.35 ppb).

that "no permit may be issued to the owner or operator of a facility unless the owner or operator
submits a complete permit application in accordance with applicable regulations," and North
Carolina regulations require an applicant provide "sufficient evidence" to ensure compliance
with water quality standards.13 The draft permit's lax PFAS and 1,4-dioxane monitoring
requirements, therefore, are no replacement for the necessary procedure the Department itself
must undergo during the permit drafting process.
Relatedly, EPA's guidance makes clear that state agencies need not wait until draft
analytical method 1633 is made final before mandating monitoring and public disclosure of
PFAS.14 Therefore, under EPA's directive, the Department must remove the time delay on
Sanford's monitoring condition and require the city to immediately begin monitoring and
disclosing its discharge of PFAS using draft analytical method 1633.
III. The Department must hold a public hearing on this draft NPDES permit.
With this letter, the Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of itself, Haw River
Assembly, and Cape Fear River Watch, once again requests a public hearing on Sanford's draft
NPDES permit.15 There is significant public interest in holding a public hearing on this draft
NPDES permit.16 As explained in thorough detail in our October 21, 2022 letter, Sanford
discharges 1,4-dioxane and PFAS into the drinking water supplies of not only its own residents,
but also the residents in Goldston, Lee County, and Chatham County. In addition, Sanford has
announced its intent to expand its drinking water services to at least three other cities across the
state —including communities that have suffered from industrial chemical pollution for decades.
The above -mentioned communities, and all those who rely on the Cape Fear River, deserve a
chance to raise their concerns regarding this permit.
IV. Conclusion.
EPA's recent guidance recommends that the NPDES and pretreatment provisions
discussed in this, as well as our prior, comment letter "be implemented... to the fullest extent
available under state and local law" when issuing a permit.17 As such, the Department must (1)
impose a condition requiring the city to control its industrial sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
pollution, (2) analyze and impose effluent limits for the chemicals in Sanford's discharge permit,
and (3) remove the delay on the PFAS monitoring requirement. The current draft permit must
therefore be withdrawn, and the public must be given a chance to comment on a new draft permit
and present their concerns at a public hearing.
13 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) ("No permit may be issued until the applicant provides sufficient evidence to
ensure that the proposed system will comply with all applicable water quality standards and requirements. No permit
may be issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards and regulations of all affected states.").
14 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 2 at 4.
15 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0111(a)(1).
16 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(c)(3); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.01 I l(a)(1).
17 EPA's PFAS NPDES Guidance, supra note 2 at 2.

Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Hannah M. Nelson
V
Jean Zhuang
Geoff Gisler
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
cc: Emily Sutton, Haw River Assembly, [e-mail]
Elaine Chiosso, Haw River Assembly, [e-mail]
Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear River Watch, [e-mail]
Dana Sargent, Cape Fear River Watch, [e-mail]
2

ATTACHMENT 1

SOUTHERN 601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220 Telephone [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Facsimile 919-929-9421
LAW
CENTER
October 21, 2022
VIA Electronic Mail
Gary Perlmutter
NCDEQ/DWR/NPDES
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Re: Southern Environmental Law Center Comments on NPDES Wastewater
Draft Permit NC0024147, Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Perlmutter:
The Southern Environmental Law Center offers the following comments, on behalf of
Haw River Assembly and Cape Fear River Watch, regarding the draft renewal National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit NC0024147, issued by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality ("the Department") to the City of Sanford for the
operation of its Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant.1
The draft permit allows the City of Sanford to discharge wastewater contaminated with
1,4-dioxane and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") from its wastewater treatment
plant into downstream drinking water supplies in the Cape Fear River Basin.2 Sanford discharges
into the Deep River, a class C water that is approximately seventeen miles upstream of the city's
own drinking water intake, which provides the drinking water for over 50,000 people in Sanford,
Goldston, Lee County, and parts of Chatham County.3 Adding to the danger of Sanford's
pollution, the City of Sanford has also announced intentions to expand its drinking water services
to provide drinking water to the cities of Pittsboro, Fuquay-Varina, and Holly Springs.4 Further
downstream, the Cape Fear River Basin and those who rely upon it are already overburdened
with harmful PFAS and 1,4-dioxane contamination.5 Communities in New Hanover, Brunswick
' N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft NPDES Permit NCO024147 (Sept. 20, 2022) [hereinafter "Big Buffalo Draft
Permit"].
2 See Sanford, NPDES Permit Application No.NC0024147 — Big Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant (Mar. 2022),
at Tab H [hereinafter "Sanford Permit Application"].
I Big Buffalo Draft Permit, supra note 1 at 2.
4 See Taylor Heeden, Pittsboro Board Discusses Funding for Water Partnership with Sanford, CHATHAM NEWS &
RECORD (Jan. 30, 2022), hlt2s:Hchapelboro.com/town-square/pittsboro-board-discusses-funding-for-water-
partnership-with-sanford Attachment 1; Interbasin Transfer, FUQUAY-VARINA, N.C., hit2s://www.fuquqy-
varina.org/I 098/lnterbasin-Transfer (last visited Oct. 20, 2022), Attachment 2; Rob Fox, Water Needs, SUBURBAN
LIVING (Dec. 17, 2021), hops://hollyssprings.suburbanlivinamag.com/water-needs/, Attachment 3.
'N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, 1,4-Dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Ongoing
Screening, Source Identification, and Abatement Verification Study 2 (Feb. 2017), available at
https://deq.nc.gov/media/8625/download; PFAS Contamination in the U.S., ENV'T WORKING GROUP (June 2022),
hLtps://www.ewg.org/interactive-mgps/Tfas contamination/.
Charlottesville Chapel Hill Atlanta Asheville Birmingham Charleston Nashville Richmond Washington, DC

and Pender counties, which include the cities of Fayetteville and Wilmington, for example,
repeatedly experience elevated amounts of these chemicals in their drinking water supply.' If
Sanford moves forward with its intention to sell water to several additional communities, the
drinking water of more than 135,000 North Carolinians will be polluted by Sanford's PFAS and
1,4-dioxane contamination, and that pollution could potentially spread to the Neuse Rivera
The Department has the authority and responsibility to prevent this pollution. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") PFAS Strategic Roadmap recently affirmed that
"existing NPDES authorities" can be used to "reduce discharges of PFAS at the source."8 EPA's
plan further confirms that the Clean Water Act pretreatment program can be used to control
sources of PFAS, and the agency intends to "require pretreatment programs to include source
control."9 While EPA's guidance focuses on PFAS, the same mechanisms exist for 1,4-dioxane.
North Carolina communities continue to suffer from exposure to these chemicals, and the
Department must act now to stop PFAS and 1,4-dioxane from entering our rivers, streams, and
drinking water supplies. The Department must use its existing authority under the Clean Water
Act to implement limits and mandate that Sanford use its pretreatment authority to ensure these
harmful chemicals are kept out of our state's waterways.
I. Sanford's wastewater plant releases PFAS, a class of chemicals known to cause
harm to human health and the environment.
In Sanford's permit application materials, the city includes sampling results from 2019
and 2020 indicating that both the influent (water coming into the plant) and effluent (discharge
from the plant) contain PFAS.10 PFAS have been recorded in the wastewater treatment plant at
levels as high as 4,026 parts per trillion ("ppt") and data shows that these chemicals make their
way into Sanford's wastewater discharges. I I
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals manufactured and used broadly by industry
since the 1940s.12 PFAS pose a significant threat to human health at extremely low
concentrations. Two of the most studied PFAS—perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
6 See, e.g., Fayetteville Public Works Commission, 2021 Water Quality Report (Jan. 2022), at 9-10, available at
https://www.faypwc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-WQR-2.pdf; Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, 2021
Drinking Water Quality Report (2022), at 17-20, available at
hLtps://www.cfpua.org/ArchiveCenterNiewFile/Item/798.
7 Letter from Adam Mitchell, Town Manager Fuquay-Varina to Stanley Meiburg, Chairman N.C. Env't Mgmt.
Comm'n (Sept. 1, 2020), Attachment 4.
a U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024 14 (Oct. 2021),
htt2s://perma.cc/LK4U-RLBH [hereinafter "EPA PFAS Roadmap"].
9 Id.
io Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
11 Id.
" Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four Perfluoroalkyl Substances, 87 Fed. Reg. 36,848, 36,849
(June 21, 2022); Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS, U.S. ENV'T
PROT. AGENCY, https://www.epa.aoy/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas
(last visited Sept. 12, 2022).

perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS")—are bioaccumulative and highly persistent in humans.13
PFOA and PFOS have been shown to cause developmental effects to fetuses and infants, kidney
and testicular cancer, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis,
obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines, reduced hormone levels, delayed puberty, and
lower birth weight and size.14 Because of its impacts on the immune system, PFAS can also
exacerbate the effects of Covid-19.15 Studies show that exposure to mixtures of different PFAS
can worsen these health effects.16 Given these harms, EPA in June 2022 established interim
updated lifetime health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water of 0.004 and 0.02 ppt,
respectively.) 7
Other PFAS are similarly harmful.)$ This June, EPA set a final lifetime health advisory
for GenX in drinking water of 10 ppt.19 Numerous states have acknowledged the dangers of
other PFAS compounds and proposed or finalized drinking water standards for various PFAS at
20 ppt and lower.20
13 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,849; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (PFOA) CASRN 335-67-1 (June 2022), at 3-4, available at
hops://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfoa-2022.pdf, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Interim
Drinking Water Health Advisory: Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) CASRN 1763-23-1 (June 2022), at 3-4,
available at hlWs://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/interim-pfos-2022.pdf
14 Arlene Blum et al., The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 ENv'T. HEALTH
PERSP. 5, A 107 (May 2015); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFAS: Fact Sheet for
Communities, at 1-2 (June 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/drinking_
water-ha-pfas-factsheet-communities.pdf.
15 See Lauren Brown, Insight: PFAS, Covid-19, and Immune Response —Connecting the Dots, BLOOMBERG LAw
(July 13, 2020, 4:00 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/insight-pfas-covid-l9-and-
immune-response-connecting-the-dots?context--article-related.
" Emma V. Preston et al., Prenatal Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Maternal and Neonatal
Thyroid Function in the Project Viva Cohort: A Mixtures Approach, 139 ENV'T INT'L 1 (2020),
h1�2s://perma.cc/DJK3-87SN.
17 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,848-49.
18 U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls (May 2021), available at
h12s://perma.cc/AHF7-RLQD; see also U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Technical Fact Sheet: Drinking Water Health
Advisories for Four PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, GenX chemicals, and PFBS) (June 2022), Attachment 5.
19 87 Fed. Reg. at 36,848-49.
20 See Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), INTEGRAL CORP., hLtps://www.integral-corp.com/pfas/ (last
visited Sept. 12, 2022).

PFAS are also harmful to wildlife and the environment. The chemicals have been shown
to cause damaging effects in fish'21 amphibians,22 mollusks '23 and other aquatic invertebrates24_
resulting in developmental and reproductive impacts, behavioral changes, adverse effects to
livers, disruption to endocrine systems, and weakened immune systems.25 Moreover, PFAS are
extremely resistant to breaking down in the environment, can travel long distances, and bio-
accumulate in organisms.26 PFAS have been found in fish tissue, and the primarily low-income
and minority communities that rely heavily on subsistence fishing have been found to have
21 Chen et al., Perfluorobutanesulfonate Exposure Causes Durable and Transgenerational Dysbiosis of Gut
Microbiota in Marine Medaka, 5 ENv'T SCI. & TECH LETTERS 731-38 (2018); Chen et al., Accumulation
of Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) and Impairment of Visual Function in the Eyes of Marine Medaka After
a LifeCycle Exposure, 201 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 1-10 (2018); Du et al., Chronic Effects of Water -Borne PFOS
Exposure on Growth, Survival and Hepatotoxicity in Zebrafish: A Partial Life -Cycle Test, 74 CHEMOSPHERE 723-29
(2009); Hagenaars et al., Structure Activity Relationship Assessment of Four Perfluorinated Chemicals Using a
Prolonged Zebrafish Early Life Stage Test, 82 CHEMOSPHERE 764-72 (2011); Huang et al., Toxicity, Uptake
Kinetics and Behavior Assessment in Zebrafish Embryos Following Exposure
to Perfluorooctanesulphonicacid (PFOS), 98 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 139-47 (2010); Jantzen et al., PFOS, PFNA,
and PFOA Sub -Lethal Exposure to Embryonic Zebrafish Have Different Toxicity Profiles in terms of
Morphometrics, Behavior and Gene Expression, 175 AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY 160-70 (2016); Liu et al., The Thyroid -
Disrupting Effects of Long -Term Perfluorononanoate Exposure on Zebrafish (Danio rerio),
20 ECOTOXICOLOGY 47-55 (2011); Chen et al., Multigenerational Disruption of the Thyroid Endocrine System in
Marine Medaka after a Life -Cycle Exposure to Perfluorobutanesulfonate, 52 ENv'T SCI. & TECH. 4432-39
(2018); Rotondo et al., Environmental Doses of Perfluorooctanoic Acid Change the Expression of Genes in Target
Tissues of Common Carp, 37 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 942-48 (2018).
" Ankley et al., Partial Life -Cycle Toxicity and Bioconcentration Modeling of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in the
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens), 23 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2745 (2004); Cheng et al., Thyroid
Disruption Effects of Environmental Level Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS) in Xenopus Laevis,
20 ECOTOxICOLOGY 2069-78 (2011); Lou et al., Effects
of Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Perfluorobutanesulfonate on the Growth and Sexual Development of
Xenopus Laevis, 22 ECOTOxICOLOGY 1133-44 (2013).
" Liu et al., Oxidative Toxicity of Perfluorinated Chemicals in Green Mussel and Bioaccumulation Factor
Dependent Quantitative Structure -Activity Relationship, 33 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2323-32 (2014); Liu et
al., Immunotoxicity in Green Mussels under Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Exposure: Reversible Response and
Response Model Development, 37 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 1138-45 (2018).
" Houde et al., Endocrine -Disruption Potential of Perfluoroethylcyclohexane Sulfonate (PFECHS) in Chronically
Exposed Daphnia Magna, 218 ENv'T POLLUTION 950-56 (2016); Liang et al., Effects of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
on Immobilization, Heartbeat, Reproductive and Biochemical Performance of Daphnia Magna,
168 CHEMOSPHERE 1613-18 (2017); Ji et al., Oxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates (Daphnia Magna and Moina Macrocopa) and Fish (Oryzias Latipes), 27 ENv'T
TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2159 (2008); MacDonald et al., Toxicity of Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and
Perfluorooctanoic Acid to Chironomus Tentans, 23 ENv'T TOXICOLOGY & CHEM. 2116 (2004).
" See supra notes 20-23.
16What are PFAS?, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, https://www.atsdr.cdc.goy/pfas/health-
effects/overview.html (last visited Oct. 19, 2022); see also Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 12.
al

elevated PFAS levels in their blood.27 Due to these harms, EPA has published draft
recommended freshwater aquatic life criteria for PFOA and PFOS.28
In 2019, sampling of Sanford's influent showed levels of total PFAS at concentrations
between 147 ppt and 4,026 ppt.29 The city sampled its influent again in 2020, recording
concentrations of total PFAS reaching up to 2,718 ppt.30 As staggering as these results are, the
full scope of the pollution is likely even greater as influent data often underestimates PFAS
levels in the wastewater plant's effluent. Indeed, studies have found, there can be a "substantial
increase" in specific PFAS after treatment, and the "degradation of precursor compounds is a
significant contributor to PFAS contamination in the environment. ,31
Because PFAS cannot be removed by conventional wastewater treatment processes, these
toxic chemicals make it into Sanford's discharge. In 2020, the city recorded concentrations of
total PFAS in its discharge ranging between 62.17 ppt and 399.43 ppt.32 Sanford's discharge
contains two particularly harmful PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, at concentrations as high
as 15.2 ppt (3,800 times EPA's health advisory) and 14.3 ppt (715 times EPA's health advisory),
respectively.
Even though Sanford only included sampling data from 2019 and 2020, it is almost
certain these PFAS discharges have continued. Sanford receives wastewater from 11 Significant
Industrial Users33 that engage in a variety of industrial processes, including some known or
suspected to be associated with PFAS.34 For example, Sanford receives industrial wastewater
from the following likely sources of PFAS contamination:
27 Patricia A. Fair et al., Perfluoralkyl Substances (PFASs) in Edible Fish Species from Charleston Harbor and
Tributaries, South Carolina, United States: Exposure and Risk Assessment, 171 ENv'T. RES. 266 (April
2019); Chloe Johnson, Industrial chemicals in Charleston Harbor taint fish — and those who eat them, POST &
COURIER (June 4, 2022), https://www.postandcourier.com/enviromnent/industrial-chemicals-in-charleston-harbor-
taint-fish-and-those-who-eat-them/article_b2b 14506-bc 19-11 ec-83 e5-7f2a8322d624.html.
28 Draft Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS), 85 Fed. Reg. 26,199, 26,200 (May 3, 2022).
29 Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
30 Id.
31 Ulrika Eriksson, et al., Contribution ofprecursor compounds to the release ofper- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFASs) from waste water treatment plants (WWTPs), 61 J. ENVIRON. Sci. 80 (2017); see also Mich. Dep't of Env't,
Great Lakes, and Energy, Summary Report: Initiatives to Evaluate the Presence of PFAS in Municipal Wastewater
and Associated Residuals (Sludge/Biosolids) in Michigan, at 9-10, https://perma.cc/C2Z8-DT99.
32 Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
33 N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Draft Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NCO024147 1 (Sept. 8, 2022) [hereinafter
"Sanford Permit Factsheet"]; Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at 20-30.
" Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at 20-30.
5

Facility
Name
Caterpillar
Boone
Trail
Caterpillar
Womack
Hydro
Tube
Moen
Trion
STI
polymer
Organic
Industry
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Chemicals,
Category
Finishing -
Finishing -
Finishing
Finishing
Finishing
Plastics, &
Coatings
Coatings
- Coatings
- Coatings
- Coatings
Synthetic
Fibers
Average
Daily
Volume of
Wastewater
27,000
37,300
7,500
294,000
28,350
25,000
in gallons
per day
(gpd)
At least five of Sanford's Significant Industrial Users engage in industrial processes
related to metal finishing. EPA has confirmed that "PFAS have been, and continue to be, used by
metal finishing facilities in the United States" to reduce mechanical wear as well as reduce
corrosion or enhance aesthetic appearance.31 Plating, a type of metal finishing that involves
covering a surface with a thin layer of metal, is used "for corrosion inhibition and radiation
shielding; to harden, reduce friction, alter conductivity, and decorate objects; and to improve
wearability, paint adhesion, infrared (IR) reflectivity, and solderability ,36 The plating industry
uses PFAS for "corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, aesthetic enhancement," and
as a "surfactant, wetting agent/fume suppressant for chrome, copper, nickel and tin
electroplating, and postplating cleaner."37
As a result of the metal finishing industry's broad use of PFAS, PFAS contamination of
surface water is often found near these facilities.38 For instance, Michigan, which has done
extensive PFAS sampling throughout the state, has linked PFAS pollution to plating facilities in
several instances.39 The state found PFOS at levels of 19,000 ppt in the wastewater from Lapeer
15 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Multi -Industry Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Study -2021 Preliminary
Report 6-4 (Sept. 2021), available at h!Ws://www.ppa.gov/Ustem/files/documents/2021-09/multi-industry_pfas-
study preliminary-2021-report _508_2021.09.08.pdf [hereinafter "EPA PFAS Industry Preliminary Report"].
16 Hayley & Aldrich, PFAS Technical Update (2020), available at
httDs://www.halevaldrich. com/Portals/0/Downloads/HA-Technical-Update-PFAS-in-the-DlatinL,-industrv.Ddf.
37 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 5
(2020), available at https://pfas-
Litrcweb.or /g fact_sheets page/PFAS _Fact _Sheet _History and Use_April2020.pdf, Fath, et al., Electrochemical
decomposition of fluorinated wetting agents in plating industry waste water, 73 WATER SCi TECH. 7, 1659-66
(2016), available at hlt2s:Hiwgponline.com/wst/article-lookup/doi/10.2166/wst.2015.650.
38 See EPA PFAS Industry Preliminary Report, supra note 35 at 6-4 to 6-5.
s9 Garret Ellison, All Known PFAS Sites in Michigan, MLIVE (Jun. 11, 2019), https://www.mlive.com/news/err-
2018/07/00699c24a57658/michigan pfas sites.html.
on

Plating & Plastics, a chrome finishing company.40 Similarly, the state has found elevated levels
of PFAS in or around:
• the Washetenaw Industrial Facility in Saline, a former plating site;
• the Ford Motor Company Saline Plant, which formerly did chrome plating;
• a former General Motors Plant 3 plating facility in Lansing;
• the Adams Plating Superfund site in Lansing;
• the Michner Plating shop in Jackson;
• the Diamond Chrome Plating facility in Howell;
• an old Lacks Enterprises plating shop in Cascade Township;
• Electro Chemical Finishing in Wyoming, which discharged plating wastewater;
• a former Lacks Enterprises plating shop in Saranac;
• the former Production Plated Plastics site in Richland;
• the MAHLE Engine Components USA former Harvey Street plant in
Muskegon, which previously used plating in the production of engine parts;
• the Peerless Plating facility in Muskegon Heights; and
• the former Manistee Plating shop.41
Similarly, industries that work with organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
like Sanford's STI Polymer —are a suspected point source category for PFAS.42 EPA notes that
this category:
includes a broad range of sectors, raw materials, and unit operations that may
manufacture or use PFAS ... some [organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fiber]
facilities use PFAS feedstocks as polymerization or processing aids or in the
production of plastic, rubber, resin, coatings, and commercial cleaning products.43
Given these characteristics, EPA has found that this industry category is likely to generate
wastewater containing long -chain and short -chain PFAS including those that are well -studied
and known to be harmful to humans.44
It is possible that Sanford receives wastewater from other industrial sources of PFAS
pollution, nonetheless, because at least six of Sanford's Significant Industrial Users fall into
categories known to be associated with PFAS, it is likely that Sanford's wastewater continues to
contain the toxic chemicals.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 EPA PFAS Industry Preliminary Report, supra note 35 at 5-1.
43 Id.
44Id. at 5-8 to 5-9.
7

II. Sanford's wastewater plant releases 1,4-dioxane, a chemical that causes cancer.
In addition to Sanford's PFAS pollution, the city discharges wastewater containing 1,4-
dioxane, a chemical associated with cancer.41 Sanford reported that their average daily discharge
of 1,4-dioxane is 1.34 parts per billion ("ppb"), but prior sampling at Sanford's wastewater plant
shows levels as high as 13 ppb.46
1,4-dioxane is a clear, man-made chemical that is a byproduct of many industrial
processes.47 The chemical is toxic to humans,48 causing liver and kidney damage at incredibly
low levels.49 As a result of the harms caused by 1,4-dioxane, EPA established a drinking water
health advisory with an associated lifetime cancer risk of one -in -one -million at a concentration
of 0.35 ppb.50 The State of North Carolina has similarly determined that 1,4-dioxane is toxic and
poses a cancer risk at levels higher than 0.35 ppb.sl
Sanford's NPDES application materials contain sampling results from 2019 and 2020.
The sampling shows that the wastewater plant's influent has contained 1,4-dioxane at
concentrations as high as 13.2 ppb, more than 37 times what the state considers safe.52 In 2020,
Sanford's discharge contained levels as high as 2.43 ppb.53
III. Sanford's pollution threatens drinking water supplies for the communities in
Sanford, Goldston, Lee County, and Chatham County.
PFAS and 1,4-dioxane do not break down in the environment and are not removed by
conventional treatment technology.54 That means that if released upstream, these chemicals can
and will pollute downstream drinking water supplies. This has been confirmed before by
drinking water crises in North Carolina. PFAS pollution from the Chemours Fayetteville Works
45 Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at 23, Tab H.
46 Id. at 23.
41 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Technical Fact Sheet— 1,4-Dioxane 1-2 (2017), Attachment 6 [hereinafter "EPA,
Technical Fact Sheet — 1, 4-Dioxane"]; Detlef Knappe, 1,4-Dioxane Occurrence in the Haw River and in Pittsboro
Drinking Water, N.C. STATE UNIV. (Sept. 23, 2019).
4' EPA, Technical Fact Sheet —1,4-Dioxane, supra note 47 at 1.
49 Id.; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Chemical Assessment Summary: 1,4,-dioxane 2
https:Hcfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0326—summary.pdf (last visited on Oct. 20, 2022).
" 2018 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, EPA OFFICE OF WATER 4 (2018),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/dwtable2018.pdf; N.C. Div. of Water Res., I,4-
dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Ongoing Screening, Source Identification,
and Abatement Verification Study 2 (2017) [hereinafter "NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017 Report"] (affirming EPA's
conclusions).
11 N.C. Div. of Water Res., 1,4-dioxane Monitoring in the Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina: An Ongoing
Screening, Source Identification, and Abatement Verification Study 2 (2017) [hereinafter "NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane
2017 Report"] (affirming EPA's conclusions); see also N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Div. Water Res., Surface Water
Quality Standards, Criteria & In -Stream Target Values (2019) (stating that the one -in -one million cancer risk for
1,4-dioxane is 0.35 ppb), Attachment 7.
" Sanford Permit Application, supra note 2 at Tab H.
53 Id.
54 See What are PFAS?, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, h!Ws://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-
effects/overview.html (last visited Sept. 12, 2022); see also Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and
Environmental Risks of PFAS, supra note 12; EPA, Technical Fact Sheet— 1,4-Dioxane, supra note 47, at 1-2.
N.

Facility has contaminated drinking water intakes nearly 80 miles downstream,55 and 1,4-dioxane
pollution from the city of Greensboro's wastewater plant has reached the intake for the Pittsboro
approximately 50 miles downstream.56 Sanford's drinking water intake is seventeen miles
downstream of the wastewater plant's discharge. Toxic chemicals released by Sanford's
wastewater plant thus flow directly into the drinking water supplies for Sanford, Goldston, Lee
County and parts of Chatham County.
M
IV-- l.. V U 19 1 f
La ke
W.AVE 1--,0 U 4 i X
imately Holly Springs
Shearon /
Harris
Reservoir
�Fuquay Varina
Sanford Drinking
Vater -
ntake
ape HARNETT
adway Fea�p�� COUNTY
421
System Connections 0 Public Water Supply System Map Location
Existing
• Potential
Author: Miller Cochran ([e-mail])
Last Updated:1V7I2022
Sources: NCDEQ, NCDOT, USGS, Natural Earth 0 2 4 a
Note: Intake and facility outfall locations are approximate
based on best available data Miles
ss See Lisa Sorg, Breaking: New Analysis Indicates That Toxics Were Present in Wilmington Drinking Water at
Extreme Levels, N.C. POLICY WATCH (Oct. 9, 2019), https://pulse.ncpolicyEatch.org/2019/10/09/breaking new-
analysis-indicates-that-toxics-were-present-in-wilmington-drinking-water-at-extreme-levels/#sthash.OtzCYiv3. dpbs.
"See Lisa Sorg, PW Special Report Part Two: Lax Local Regulation Allows Toxic Carcinogen to Infiltrate
Drinking Water Across the Cape Fear River Basin, N.C. POLICY WATCH (July 23, 2020),
httDs://ncDolicvwatch. com/2020/07/23/Dw-special-report-Dart-two-lax-local-re gulation-allows-toxic-carcinogen-to-
infiltrate-drinking-water-across-the-cape-fear-river-basin/.
I

Indeed, past sampling confirms the contamination of Sanford's drinking water. Monthly
sampling by the city shows elevated levels of PFAS in the city's raw water, including
concentrations of PFOA and PFOS as high as 9.35 ppt (2,337 times EPA's health advisory) and
13.8 ppt (690 times EPA's health advisory), respectively.57 In 2021, Sanford also reported an
average concentration of 1,4-dioxane in their raw water at 0.71 ppb58—twice what the state
considers safe to drink.59 Sample results of 1,4-dioxane reached levels as high as 6.19 ppb,60
suggesting the extent of the contamination could be more severe. Because industrial discharges
of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are inconsistent (as evidenced by the variability in the sampling for
Sanford's wastewater plant), the city's infrequent drinking water sampling likely does not
capture the full scope of Sanford's drinking water pollution.
And as discussed, Sanford intends to expand its water services and send drinking water to
Pittsboro, Fuquay-Varina, and Holly Springs. Many of these areas are seeking additional water
capacity to continue their planned development, but some —like Pittsboro—are also seeking
options for water because their current supply is already contaminated with PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane.61 If Sanford's plans go through, the drinking water for more than 80,000 additional
people will be laden with these harmful chemicals.
Unfortunately, Sanford's pollution does not stop at its drinking water intake. Further
downstream, Sanford's pollution contributes to the disproportionate levels of contamination
already present in the Cape Fear River Basin. More than 300,000 people in the communities in
the lower Cape Fear get their drinking water from the Cape Fear River. And public attention on
the PFAS contamination of drinking water throughout the basin will persist. EPA's Fifth
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule will require broad sampling of drinking water
supplies beginning in 2023 and will further shine light on the extent of contamination caused by
sources like Sanford's wastewater plant.62 The Department must control Sanford's discharge if it
is to protect the communities and environment in this area.
IV. The law requires the Department to analyze limits for municipal wastewater
treatment plants and requires those municipalities to control their industries.
As EPA has affirmed, "existing NPDES authorities" can be used to "reduce discharges of
PFAS at the source."63 The same tools exist for 1,4-dioxane. For municipal wastewater treatment
51 City of Sanford, 2021 Annual Water Quality Report 6, (2021), Attachment 8 [hereinafter "Sanford 2021 Water
Report"].
sa Id. at 7.
s9 Water Quality Standards, Criteria & In -Stream Target Values, supra note 51; see also 15A N.C. Admin. Code
2B.0208.
61 Sanford 2021 Water Report, supra note 57 at 7.
61 See Town of Pittsboro Received Second Water Test Results Post-GAC, Hits 90% Removal Target, Town of
Pittsboro (Oct. 4, 2022), htt2s://pittsboronc.aov/CivicAlerts.aMx?AID=104 (reporting levels of PFOA and PFOS in
the raw water at 18.8 ppt and 17.0 ppt, respectively).
61 See U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, The Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5): Program
Overview Fact Sheet (Dec. 2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/Ustem/files/documents/2022-02/ucmr5-
factsheet.pdf.
63 EPA PFAS Roadmap, supra note 8 at 14.
10

plants heavily impacted by industrial discharges, like Sanford, the Department must consider
effluent limits and permit conditions to control the pollution.
The Clean Water Act requires permitting agencies to, at the very least, incorporate,
technology -based effluent limitations on the discharge of pollutants.64 When EPA has not issued
a national effluent limitation guideline for a particular industry,65 permitting agencies must
implement technology -based effluent limits on a case -by -case basis using their "best professional
judgment. ,66 North Carolina water quality laws further state that municipalities must be treated
like an industrial discharger if an industrial user "significantly impact[s]" a municipal treatment
system.61 In this situation, the agency must consider technology -based effluent limits for the
municipality, even if effluent limits and guidelines have not been published and adopted.68
If technology -based limits are not enough to ensure compliance with water quality
standards, the Department must include water quality -based effluent limits in the permit.69 North
Carolina's toxic substances standard protects the public from the harmful effects of toxic
chemicals, like PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.70 For instance, the toxic substances standard mandates
that the concentration of cancer -causing chemicals shall not result in "unacceptable health risks,"
defined as "more than one case of cancer per one million people exposed. ,71 In order to comply
with the Clean Water Act, therefore, the Department must analyze appropriate treatment
technology and then determine if a discharger's pollution has the "reasonable potential to cause,
or contribute" to pollution at levels that could harm human health.72
In addition to using effluent limits to control PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution, the
Department has tools and obligations under the Clean Water Act's pretreatment program.7' The
pretreatment program governs the discharge of industrial wastewater to wastewater treatment
plants and is intended to place the burden of treating polluted discharges on the entity that creates
the pollution, rather than on the taxpayers that support municipal wastewater plants.
Under the pretreatment requirements, municipalities are required to know what waste
they receive from their "Industrial Users."74 EPA has confirmed that this requirement extends to
pollutants that are not conventional or listed as toxic, like PFAS75 and the Department has
suggested the same applies to 1,4-dioxane.76 Municipalities like Sanford must instruct their
64 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) ("Technology -based treatment requirements under section 301(b) of the Act represent the
minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit..." (emphasis added)); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311.
65 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b).
66 40 C.F.R. § 125.3; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1)(B); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0406.
67 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0406(a)(1).
66 Id.
69 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) (stating that
Department must "reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations").
70 15A N.C. Admin. Code 213.0208.
71 Id. at 213.0208(a)(2)(B).
72 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i).
73 Id. § 403.8.
74Id. § 403.8(f)(2).
75 See EPA PFAS Roadmap, supra note 8 at 14.
76 See, e.g., NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017Report, supra note 51 at 5.
11

industries to identify their pollutants in an industrial waste survey77 and then to apply for a
pretreatment permit, by disclosing "effluent data," including on internal waste streams, necessary
to evaluate pollution controls.78 Significant industrial users are further required to provide
information on "[p]rincipal products and raw materials ... that affect or contribute to the
[significant industrial user's] discharge."79
A municipality that runs a wastewater plant is required to regulate its industries so that
industries do not cause "pass through."80 "Pass through" is when an industrial discharge causes
the wastewater plant to violate its own NPDES permit,81 including standard conditions such as
the one requiring permittees to "take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or
sludge use" that has a "reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment. ,82 Industries are also not permitted to interfere with publicly -owned treatment
works operations. Interference occurs when a discharge disrupts the treatment works' operation
or its sludge use or disposal and violates the facility's NPDES permit or other applicable laws.83
Violating the prohibitions on pass through or interference constitutes a violation of the Clean
Water Act's pretreatment standards and requirements.84 And finally, municipalities must act
"immediately and effectively to halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the [treatment
works] which reasonably appears to present an imminent endangerment to the health or welfare
of persons."85 These requirements are further established in Sanford's municipal ordinances.86
Municipalities like Sanford have broad authority to control their industries so that
municipally -owned treatment works can comply with these pretreatment laws. They can "deny
or condition" pollution permits for industries, control industrial pollution "through Permit, order
or similar means," and "require" "the installation of technology. ,87 Municipalities can also
implement local limits to control industrial pollution sent to treatment works in the first place.88
And in addition to the implementing effluent limits, the Department can ensure that
municipalities comply with the Clean Water Act pretreatment program by including the
appropriate permit conditions in the municipalities' NPDES permit.
These rules are how the Clean Water Act "assures the public that [industrial] dischargers
cannot contravene the [Clean Water Act's] objectives of eliminating or at least minimizing
discharges of toxic and other pollutants simply by discharging indirectly through [wastewater
77 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(2)(ii); U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, at 4-3
(Jun. 2011), available at hlWs://www.evansville oe v.org/egov/documents/1499266949_62063.pdf.
78 U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual (2012), at 4-2 to 4-3, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/industrial_ user permitting_ manual_full.pdf.
79 40 C.F.R. § 122.210)(6)(ii)(C).
80Id. § 403.8(a); id. § 403.5(a)(1).
81 Pass through is defined as "a discharge which exits the [treatment works] into waters of the United States in
quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a
cause of a violation of any requirement of the [treatment works'] NPDES permit (including an increase in the
magnitude or duration of a violation)." Id. § 403.3(p).
82 Id. § 122.41(d).
83 Id. § 403.3(k).
84 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1).
85Id. § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B).
86 See Sanford, N.C., Code art. VII § 38-241.
87 40 C.F.R.§ 403.8(f)(1).
88 Id. § 403.5.
12

treatment plants] rather than directly to receiving waters."89 The laws governing the program
ensure that municipally -owned wastewater plants do not become dumping grounds for
uncontrolled industrial waste.
V. The Department must analyze effluent limits for PFAS and 1,4-dioxane and impose
appropriate pretreatment permit conditions.
Based on the information in the city's permit application, the Department is aware that
Sanford discharges PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.90 Claiming that more information is needed,
however, the Department did not propose effluent limits and instead only placed monitoring
conditions in the city's permit for both chemicals and a reopener for 1,4-dioxane.91 If the
Department truly believes that it needs more information before analyzing and imposing effluent
limits, it must request that information during the permit process and require Sanford to submit it
as part of its permit application 92—rather than delaying pollution controls until some
indeterminate point in the future.93
a. The Department must analyze and impose effluent limits for PFAS and], 4-dioxane.
As required by the Clean Water Act and discussed in Section IV of this letter, the
Department should consider available treatment technology for Sanford's wastewater plant
because its waste is significantly impacted by industries that are likely sources of PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane. Effective treatment technologies for HAS are available. Granular activated carbon is a
cost-effective and efficient technology that can reduce PFAS concentrations to virtually
nondetectable levels. A granular activated carbon treatment system at the Chemours' facility, for
example, has reduced PFAS concentrations as high as 345,000 ppt from a creek contaminated by
groundwater beneath the facility to nearly nondetectable concentrations.94 The Department must
89 General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources, 52 Fed. Reg. 1586, 1590 (Jan. 14, 1987)
(codified at 40 C.F.R. § 403).
90 See Sanford Permit Factsheet, supra note 33 at 9, 12.
91 Id. at 12.
92 Piney Run Pres. Assn v. Cty. Commis of Carroll Cty., Maryland, 268 F.3d 255, 268 (4th Cir. 2001) ("Because
the permitting scheme is dependent on the permitting authority being able to judge whether the discharge of a
particular pollutant constitutes a significant threat to the environment, discharges not within the reasonable
contemplation of the permitting authority during the permit application process, whether spills or otherwise, do not
come within the protection of the permit shield." (emphasis added)); see also Southern Appalachian Mountain
Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d 560 (4th Cir. 2014).
93 The Department must not wait for EPA method 1633 to become final. EPA's guidance recommends using draft
Method 1633 for a municipally owned treatment works' influent, effluent, and biosolids and EPA has issued permits
requiring use of the method. See Memorandum from Radhika Fox, U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, to Water Division
Directors EPA Regions 1-10, Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where
EPA in the Pretreatment Control Authority (Apr. 28, 2022), Attachment 9[hereinafter "EPA NPDES PFAS
Guidance"]; U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, NPDES General Permit for Medium Wastewater Treatment Facilities
(WWTF's) In Massachusetts: MAG590000 (Sept. 28, 2022), at 10, Attachment 10; see also U.S. Env't Prot.
Agency, Response to Comments NPDES Permit No. MAG590000 (Sept. 28, 2022), Attachment 11.
94 See Parsons, Engineering Report — Old Outfall 002 GAC Pilot Study Results (Sept. 2019), available at
https://www.chemours.com/ja/-/media/files/corporate/l 2e-old-outfall-2-gac-pilot-report-2019-09-
30.pdPrev=6el242091aa846f888afa895eff80e2e&hash=040CAA7522E3D64B9E5445ED6F96BOFB; see also
Chemours Outfall 003, NPDES No. NC0089915 Discharge Monitoring Reports (2020-2022), available at
https://perma.cc/8YND-XT5M.
13

consider the feasibility of using this technology or similarly effective technologies to control
Sanford's PFAS discharges.
As with PFAS, treatment technologies for 1,4-dioxane are available. For instance, the
chemical can be removed using advanced oxidation processes, such as using ultraviolet light in
combination with hydrogen peroxide.9' Such a process has been used at the Tucson International
Airport Area Superfund Site to remove legacy 1,4-dioxane contamination.96 That treatment
system can remove over 97 percent of the chemical from polluted water.97 Treatment technology
for 1,4-dioxane has been installed at industries in North Carolina, as well.98 The Department
must assess treatment technology available to control Sanford's 1,4-dioxane waste.
Additionally, as discussed in Section IV, the Department must evaluate water quality -
based effluent limits for Sanford's permit —particularly limits to ensure compliance with the
narrative toxic substances standard. EPA's health advisories for PFAS and countless toxicity
studies indicate that the chemicals pose unacceptable health risks at extremely low levels. The
Department has stated that PFAS "meet the definition of `toxic substance"' and has included
limits for PFAS referencing the water quality standard and EPA's health advisory for GenX in at
least one NPDES permit.99 The Department should similarly assess effluent limits in Sanford's
permit based on EPA's interim and final PFAS health advisories and other available toxicity
information for the chemicals. This is even more important here where the drinking water intake
is only seventeen miles downstream of the discharge.
The Department must also ensure that Sanford's 1,4-dioxane discharges do not violate
the narrative toxic substances standard. As the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission has made clear, the state uses this standard to set limits and conditions for 1,4-
dioxane in NPDES permits.loo The Department has interpreted the standard to require
concentrations of 1,4-dioxane be less than 0.35 ppb in rivers and streams that serve as drinking
water supplies. I0I In order to comply with the Clean Water Act, therefore, the Department must
91 Arnie C. McElroy, et al., 1,4-Dioxane in drinking water: emerging for 40 years and still unregulated, 7 CURRENT
OPINION IN ENV'T SCIENCE & HEALTH 117, 119 (2019), available at hit 2s:Hagris.fao.or /ag gris-
search/search. do?recordID=US201900256076.
96 See Advanced Treatment for 1,4-Dioxane — Tucson Removes Contamination Through UV -oxidation, TROJANUV
CASESTUDIES (2019), available at hlWs://www.resources.trojanuv.com/w
91 Id. at 2; see also Educational Brochure, TUCSON AIRPORT AREA REMEDIATION PROJECT, available at
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/AOP TARP_ educational_signs.pdf.
98 See City of Greensboro, EMC SOC WQ S 19-010 Year One Report: May 1, 2021 — April 30, 2022 4 (June 13,
2022), available at https://www.,greensboro-nc.,gov/home/showpublisheddocument/53017/637908166316270000.
99 Amended Complaint, North Carolina v. The Chemours Co., 17 CVS 580 (Apr. 9, 2018), at ¶ 152 (stating that "the
process wastewater from [Chemours'] Fluoromonomers/Nafion® Membrane Manufacturing Area contains and has
contained substances or combinations of substances which meet the definition of "toxic substance" set forth in 15A
N.C.A.C. 2B.0202," referring to GenX and other PFAS); N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, NPDES Permit NCO090042
(Sept. 15, 2022), Attachment 12; N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, Fact Sheet NPDES Permit No. NCO090042 (Sept. 15,
2022), at 11-12, Attachment 13.
'0' See, e.g., N.C. Env't Mgmt. Comm'n, Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2020-2022 Triennial Review — Surface Water
Quality Standards 13- 13 (2021), Attachment 14 (explaining that the state uses the narrative toxic substances standard
to set limits in NPDES permits).
'0' NCDWR, 1,4-dioxane 2017Report, supra note 51 at 2.
14

limit Sanford's discharge so that it will not "cause, or contribute" to concentrations of 1,4-
dioxane exceeding 0.35 ppb in downstream water supplies.10' Because Sanford's discharge is
only seventeen miles from a drinking water intake, the Department must consider whether
Sanford's discharge of 1,4-dioxane has the reasonable potential to violate water quality standards
at the start of that water supply water only a few miles downstream.
Additionally, the reopener placed in Sanford's permit is not enough to protect
communities affected by Sanford's pollution —those communities cannot be forced to wait for
protection. The Department cannot issue a permit unless conditions ensure compliance with
water quality standards,103 and a mere reopener that could be used if an expected water quality
standard violation occurs cannot overcome the Department's obligation to ensure that water
quality standards will be met before issuing a permit. Downstream communities are justifiably
concerned about the likelihood that Sanford's permit will actually be reopened given that the 1,4-
dioxane reopener in the City of Greensboro's permit has yet to result in enforceable limits
despite years of data indicating the municipality discharges the toxic chemical.104
The Department must analyze existing data and impose pollution limits for Sanford's
wastewater plant. What the agency has done in the current draft permit —requiring only
monitoring —is not enough to protect communities currently suffering from PFAS and 1,4-
dioxane pollution.
b. The Department must impose conditions in Sanford's NPDESpermit requiring the city to
use its pretreatment authority to control its industries.
By setting PFAS and 1,4-dioxane limits and conditions in Sanford's permit, the
Department can ensure that Sanford properly regulates its industrial users so that they do not
release uncontrolled toxic waste into the environment and downstream drinking water
supplies.105 The Department must also consider pretreatment conditions in Sanford's permit to
ensure that the city properly identifies and controls any industrial sources of these chemicals.
As an initial matter, the Department must require Sanford to identify all industrial sources
of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane. EPA's NPDES PFAS Guidance recommends that permits issued to
municipal wastewater treatment plants include a permit requirement to identify industrial users in
102 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i).
"I 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0112(c) ("No permit may be issued until the applicant provides sufficient evidence to
ensure that the proposed system will comply with all applicable water quality standards and requirements. No permit
may be issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure compliance with applicable water quality
standards and regulations of all affected states.").
114 Compare N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, NPDES Permit No. NC0047384 (2014) (containing a reopener that states
"[t]his permit may be reopened and modified in the future to include 1,4-dioxane monitoring and/or reduction
measures, if the wastewater discharge is identified as contributing to violations of surface water quality standards")
with N.C. Dep't of Env't Quality, T.Z. Osborne WWTP DEQ Special Study: 1,4-Dioxane Effluent Data (2020),
available at hlWs:Hdeg.nc.gov/media/18067/download (collecting effluent sample results between 2017 and 2020
and reaching as high as 957.5 ppb) and City of Greensboro, T.Z. Osborne 1,4-dioxane Grab Sample Data (Feb.
2022), hlWs://www.,greensboro-nc.aov/home/shoyMublisheddocument/52232/637837174143630000 (reporting 1,4-
dioxane concentrations ranging between 1.54 ppb and 823 ppb in Greensboro's effluent between May 5, 2021 and
February 15, 2022).
105 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1).
15

industry categories "expected or suspected of PFAS discharges."lob After industrial users are
identified, the guidance recommends using data collected to develop best management practices
or local limits.107 EPA Region 1 issued an updated NPDES General Permit for medium-sized
municipally -owned treatment works in Massachusetts implementing this guidance. The permit
requires quarterly sampling of the municipality's influent, effluent, and sludge, as well as annual
sampling of the industrial sources.108 The Department should place a condition in Sanford's
permit that requires it to update its industrial user survey and determine the volume and/or
concentration of HAS and 1,4-dioxane being sent, by each industrial user, to the wastewater
treatment plant.
After the survey, Sanford will have the tools and information needed to ensure its
industries do not cause it to continue to release PFAS and 1,4-dioxane in violation of the Clean
Water Act. First, Sanford's municipal ordinances state "[n]o user shall contribute or cause to be
contributed into the [wastewater plant] ... [a]ny wastewater causing the treatment plant effluent
to violate state water quality standards for toxic substances as described in 15A NCAC
2B.0200."109 As discussed above, both PFAS and 1,4-dioxane are regulated as toxic substances
under this provision of North Carolina law, and releases of those chemicals that have the
potential to harm human health would violate Sanford's ordinance.
In addition, PFAS and 1,4-dioxane released by Sanford's industries into the city's
wastewater plant violate the Clean Water Act's pretreatment regulations. For instance, this
pollution causes "pass through" because it causes Sanford to violate its NPDES permit
conditions, such as the condition requiring permittees to "take all reasonable steps to prevent or
minimize any discharge or sludge use" that has a "reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the environment."110 Not only do PFAS and 1,4-dioxane flow straight through
Sanford's wastewater plant, untreated, as discharges that harm human health and the
environment, the chemicals can also end up in Sanford's sludge, t t t which further threatens
human health and the environment when the sludge is land applied. Studies have shown that
PFAS-contaminated sludge that is land applied can runoff into surface waters that supply
drinking water for communities downstream and leach into groundwater which in turn threatens
106 EPA NPDES PFAS Guidance, supra note 93 at 3.
107 Id.
108 NPDES General Permit MAG590000, supra note 93 at 5.
109 Sanford, N.C., Code art V11 § 38-241(b)(19).
110 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(d).
111 Sanford produces sludge as a byproduct of the city's treatment processes and arranges for its sludge to be applied
on nearby fields in Chatham County. Sanford is authorized to apply 1,500 dry tons of sludge each year. Because
Sanford's treatment plant is not equipped to remove PFAS or 1,4-dioxane, Sanford's sludge likely contains these
toxic chemicals.
16

drinking water wells.112 1,4-dioxane has also been found in solid waste in North Carolina,113 and
the land application of sludge contaminated with 1,4-dioxane could also pollute nearby waters.
Second, because these chemicals can end up in Sanford's sludge, PFAS and 1,4-dioxane
coming from the city's industries are likely also causing "interference," interfering with the
city's sludge processes, use, and disposal practice.114 Finally, municipalities like Sanford are
required to "immediately and effectively ... halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the
[treatment works] which reasonably appears to present an imminent endangerment to the health
or welfare of persons."' 15 This includes any PFAS or 1,4-dioxane that Sanford receives from its
industries. Based on the available data, Sanford has not "immediately ... halt[ed] or
prevent[ed]" any PFAS and 1,4-dioxane pollution it receives from its industries.
As the permitting authority for Sanford and the approval authority of the city's
pretreatment program, the Department must incorporate NPDES requirements as necessary to
ensure compliance. As stated in EPA's NPDES permitting guidance manual, "NPDES permits
drive the development and implementation of pretreatment programs."' 16 They do so by
requiring "control mechanisms issued to significant industrial users," "compliance monitoring
activities," and "swift and effective enforcement." 117 Because Sanford's significant industrial
users are likely responsible for the city's PFAS and 1,4-dioxane discharges, the Department
should include necessary conditions in Sanford's permit to require the city to: (1) update its
industrial user survey and determine all industrial sources of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, and (2)
control any industrial sources of the chemicals "through Permit, order," "the installation of
technology," 118 local limits,' 19 or other means under the Clean Water Act pretreatment program.
VI. The Department must hold a public hearing on this draft NPDES permit.
With this letter, the Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of itself, Haw River
Assembly, and Cape Fear River Watch, requests a public hearing on Sanford's draft NPDES
112 Andrew B. Lindstrom et al., Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound
Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA, 45 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 8015 (2011);
Jennifer G. Sepulvado et al., Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of
Municipal Biosolids, 45 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. A, (2011); Janine Kowalczyk et al., Transfer of Perfluorooctanoic
Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)From Contaminated Feed Into Milk and Meat of Sheep: Pilot
Study, 63 ARCHIVES ENVTL. CONTAMINATION & TOXICOLOGY 288 (2012); Holly Lee et al., Fate of
Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphate Diesters and Their Metabolites in Biosolids-Applied Soil: Biodegradation and Plant
Uptake in Greenhouse and Field Experiments, 48 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 340 (2014).
13 Lisa Sorg, What is your compost made of? Use public records to find out., N.C. POLICY WATCH (Apr. 26, 2019),
https://pulse.ncpolicywatch. org/2019/04/26/what-is-your-compost-made-of-use-public-records-to-find-
out/#sthash. W sY V VKXk. dpbs.
114 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(k).
115 Id. § 403.8 § (f)(1)(vi)(B); see also Sanford, N.C., Code art. VII. § 38-224(a)(5) (a municipally -owned
wastewater plant "may suspend the wastewater treatment service and/or wastewater permit when such suspension is
necessary in order to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present an imminent or
substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of persons or the environment, interferes with the [public works]
or causes the [public works] to violate any condition of its NPDES or non -discharge permit.").
"' U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, NPDES Permit Writers' Manual 9-10 (2010), available at
hlt2s://www.ej2a.aov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/Twm 2010.pdf.
117 Id.
118 40 C.F.R. § 403.8(f)(1) (emphasis added).
19 40 C.F.R. § 403.5.
17

permit.120 We are aware that members of the public have already requested a public hearing, but
emphasize again the importance of holding such a public event.
There is significant public interest in holding a public hearing on this draft NPDES
permit.121 As explained in thorough detail above, Sanford discharges 1,4-dioxane and PFAS into
the drinking water supplies of not only its own residents, but also the residents in Goldston, Lee
County, and Chatham County. In addition, Sanford has announced its intent to expand its
drinking water services to at least three other cities across the stateincluding communities that
have suffered from industrial chemical pollution for decades. Furthermore, the pollution from
Sanford's wastewater plant compounds on the industrial pollution already plaguing the Cape
Fear River. The pollution threatens the health of the eco-system of this bio-diversity hotspot and
the communities across the Lower Cape Fear, including those in New Hanover, Brunswick and
Pender counties, that rely on the Cape Fear for their drinking water, as well as their fishing and
tourism economies.
VII. Conclusion.
In summary, the Department must evaluate and impose pollution limits for PFAS and
1,4-dioxane in Sanford's NPDES permit. Additionally, the Department must require Sanford to
update its industrial user survey to include PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, and the Department must
impose conditions in Sanford's NPDES permit to require the city to use its pretreatment
authority to control industrial sources of the toxic chemicals. Because the draft permit fails to
meet these requirements, it should be withdrawn. Additionally, we request that the Department
hold a public hearing on this permit so that communities affected by Sanford's pollution can
express their concerns.
Thank you for considering these comments. Please contact me at 919-967-1450 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
4""OAW
Hannah M. Nelson
Jean Zhuan
`0 .n.-
Geoff Gisler
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
121 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0I I I(a)(1).
12' N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(c)(3); 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.01I I(a)(1).
IN

cc: Emily Sutton, Haw River Assembly, [e-mail]
Elaine Chiosso, Haw River Assembly, [e-mail]
Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear River Watch, kemp@cfrw. us
Dana Sargent, Cape Fear River Watch, [e-mail]
19

ATTACHMENT 2

J��A ED S T,4 TES`
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
W
y 6 OFFICE OF WATER
0
�2r'Q[ PROZ�GA
December 5, 2022
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Addressing PFAS Discharges in NPDES Permits and Through the Pretreatment Program
and Monitoring Programs
FROM: Radhika Fox
Assistant Administrator
TO: EPA Regional Water Division Directors, Regions 1-10
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is an important tool
established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to help address water pollution by regulating point sources
that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. Collectively, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and states issue thousands of permits annually, establishing important monitoring and
pollution reduction requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), industrial facilities,
and stormwater discharges nationwide. The NPDES program interfaces with many pathways by which
per -and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) travel and are released into the environment, and ultimately
impact water quality and the health of people and ecosystems. Consistent with the Agency's
commitments in the October 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA 's Commitments to Action 2021-2024
(PFAS Strategic Roadmap), EPA will work in cooperation with our state -authorized permitting
authorities to leverage the NPDES program to restrict the discharge of PFAS at their sources. In addition
to reducing PFAS discharges, this program will enable EPA and the states to obtain comprehensive
information on the sources and quantities of PFAS discharges, which can be used to inform appropriate
next steps to limit the discharges of PFAS.
This memorandum provides EPA's guidance to states and updates the April 28, 2022 guidance 1 to EPA
Regions for addressing PFAS discharges when they are authorized to administer the NPDES permitting
program and/or pretreatment program. These recommendations reflect the Agency's commitments in the
PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which directs the Office of Water to leverage NPDES permits to reduce
PFAS discharges to waterways "at the source and obtain more comprehensive information through
monitoring on the sources of PFAS and quantity of PFAS discharged by these sources." While the
Office of Water works to revise Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) and develop water quality
criteria to support technology -based and water quality -based effluent limits for PFAS in NPDES
permits, this memorandum describes steps permit writers can implement under existing authorities to
reduce the discharge of PFAS.
1 Addressing PFAS Discharges in EPA -Issued NPDES Permits and Expectations Where EPA is the Pretreatment Control
Authority, https://www.epa.gov/ssystem/files/documents/2022-04/npdes pfas-memo.pdf.

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

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

addition to TBELs developed on a BPJ basis, if necessary to achieve water quality standards,
including state narrative criteria for water quality (CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C); 40 CFR 122.22(d)).
If a state has established a numeric criterion or a numeric translation of an existing narrative water
quality standard for PFAS parameters, the permit writer should apply that numeric criterion or
narrative interpretation in permitting decisions, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(iii) and
122.44(d)(1)(vi)(A), respectively.
B. Recommendations for Publicly Owned Treatment Works
1. Applicability: All POTWs, including POTWs that do not receive industrial discharges, and
industrial users (IUs) in the industrial categories above.
2. Effluent, influent, and biosolids monitoring: In the absence of a final 40 CFR Part 136 method,
EPA recommends using CWA wastewater draft analytical method 1633 (see 40 CFR
122.21(e)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iv)(B)). EPA also recommends that monitoring include
each of the 40 PFAS parameters detectable by draft method 1633 and be conducted at least quarterly
to ensure that there are adequate data to assess the presence and concentration of PFAS in
discharges. All PFAS monitoring data must be reported on DMRs (see 40 CFR 122.41(1)(4)(i)). The
draft Adsorbable Organic Fluorine CWA wastewater method 1621 can be used in conjunction with
draft method 1633, if appropriate.
3. Pretreatment program activities:
a. Update IU Inventory: Permits to POTWs should contain requirements to identify and locate all
possible IUs that might be subject to the pretreatment program and identify the character and
volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW by the IUs (see 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)). As EPA
regulations require, this information shall be provided to the pretreatment control authority (see
40 CFR 122.440) and 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6)) within one year. The IU inventory should be revised,
as necessary, to include all IUs in industry categories expected or suspected of PFAS discharges
listed above (see 40 CFR 403.12(i)).6
b. Utilize BMPs and pollution prevention to address PFAS discharges to POTWs. EPA
recommends that POTWs:
i. Update IU permits/control mechanisms to require quarterly monitoring. These IUs should be
input into the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with appropriate linkage to
their respective receiving POTWs. POTWs and states may also use their available authorities
to conduct quarterly monitoring of the IUs (see 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2), 403.10(e) and (f)(2)).
ii. Where authority exists, develop IU BMPs or local limits. 40 CFR 403.5(c)(4) authorizes
POTWs to develop local limits in the form of BMPs. Such BMPs could be like those for
industrial direct discharges described in A.3 above.
iii. In the absence of local limits and POTW legal authority to issue IU control mechanisms, state
pretreatment coordinators are encouraged to work with the POTWs to encourage pollution
prevention, product substitution, and good housekeeping practices to snake meaningful
reductions in PFAS introduced to POTWs.
6 ELG categories of airport deicing, landfills, textile mills, and plastics molding and forming do not have categorical
pretreatment standards, and therefore small -volume indirect dischargers in those categories would not ordinarily be
considered Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and may not be captured on an existing IU inventory. IUs under the Paint
Formulating category are only subject to Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS), and existing sources may need to
be inventoried.
4

C. Recommended Biosolids Assessment
1. Where appropriate, states may work with their POTWs to reduce the amount of PFAS
chemicals in biosolids, in addition to the NPDES recommendations in Section B above,
following these general steps: 7
a. EPA recommends using draft method 1633 to analyze biosolids at POTWs for the presence of 40
PFAS chemicals.8
b. Where monitoring and IU inventory per section B.2 and B.3.a above indicate the presence of
HAS in biosolids from industrial sources, EPA recommends actions in B.3.b to reduce PFAS
discharges from IUs.
c. EPA recommends validating PFAS reductions with regular monitoring of biosolids. States may
also use their available authorities to conduct quarterly monitoring of the POTWs (see 40 CFR
403.10(f)(2)).
D. Recommended Public Notice for Draft Permits with PFAS-Specific Conditions
1. In addition to the requirements for public notice described in 40 CFR 124.10, EPA
recommends that NPDES permitting authorities provide notification to potentially affected
downstream public water systems (PWS) of draft permits with PFAS-specific monitoring,
BMPs, or other conditions:
a. Public notice of the draft permit would be provided to potentially affected PWS with intakes
located downstream of the NPDES discharge.
b. NPDES permit writers are encouraged to collaborate with their drinking water program
counterparts to determine on asite-specific basis which PWS to notify.
i. EPA's Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source Waters (DWMAPS) tool may
be helpful as a screening tool to identify potentially affected PWS to notify.
c. EPA will provide instructions on how to search for facility -specific discharge monitoring data
in EPA's publicly available search tools.
EPA is currently evaluating the potential risk of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids and supporting studies and activities to
evaluate the presence of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. This recommendation is not meant to supersede the PFOA and PFOS
risk assessment or supporting activities. The conclusions of the risk assessment and supporting studies may indicate that
regulatory actions or more stringent requirements are necessary to protect human health and the environment.
' While water quality monitoring activities (including monitoring of PFAS associated with NPDES permit or pretreatment
requirements) at POTWs are generally not eligible for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), monitoring for the
specific purpose of project development (planning, design, and construction) is eligible. Monitoring in this capacity, and
within a reasonable timeframe, can be integral to the identification of the best solutions (through an alternatives analysis) for
addressing emerging contaminants and characterizing discharge and point of disposal (e.g., land application of biosolids).
Though ideally the planning and monitoring for project development would result in a CWSRF-eligible capital project, in
some instances, the planning could lead to outcomes other than capital projects to address the emerging contaminants.