AIRW 2017-7, L.P.; 600 Westinghouse Investments, LLC; 800 Westinghouse Investments, LLC; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; And Jonah Water Special Utility District v. City of Georgetown, Texas

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-24-00132-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/22/2025 4:02 PM No. 15-24-00132-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN AUSTIN, TEXAS 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/21/2025 5:00:00 PM AIRW 2017-7, L.P.; 600 WESTINGHOUSE INVESTMENTS, LLC; 800 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE WESTINGHOUSE INVESTMENTS, LLC; TEXAS COMMISSION ClerkON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; AND JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellants

v. CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 261st District Court, Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D1-GN-23-001004

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT

John J. Carlton State Bar No. 03817600 Kelli A. N. Carlton State Bar No. 15091175

Erin R. Selvera State Bar No. 24043385

THE CARLTON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 4301 Westbank Drive, Suite B-130 Austin, Texas 78746 john@carltonlawaustin.com kelli@carltonlawaustin.com erin@carltonlawaustin.com Telephone: (512) 614-0901 Facsimile: (512) 900-2855 ATTORNEYS FOR JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 1 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

PARTY COUNSEL

Defendant-Appellant: Aaron L. Nielson Texas Commission on Solicitor General Environmental Quality Evan Greene Assistant Solicitor General Evan.Greene@oag.texas.gov Kellie E. Billings-Ray Chief, Environmental Protection Division Sara J. Ferris Assistant Attorney General Sara.Ferris@oag.texas.gov OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548, MC-066 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 463-2012 | Fax: (512) 320-0911

Plaintiff-Appellee: William A. Faulk, III City of Georgetown, Texas cfaulk@spencerfane.com Carlota Hopinks-Baul chbaul@spencerfane.com Maris M. Chambers mchambers@spencerfane.com SPENCER FANE, LLP 9442 North Capital of Texas Highway Plaza I, Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78759 Patricia Erlinger Carls tcarls@tcarlslaw.com LAW OFFICES OF PATRICIA ERLINGER CARLS 3100 Glenview Ave. Austin, Texas 78703-1443

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 2 Intervenor Defendants- Andrew Davis Appellants: Andrew@lkcfirm.com AIRW 2017-7, L.P.; 600 Westinghouse Investments, LLC; William T. Thompson and 800 Westinghouse will@lkcfrim.com Investments, LLC Todd Disher todd@lkcfirm.com Michael C. Cotton michael@lkcfirm.com LEHOTSKY KELLER, LLP 408 W. 11th Street, 5th Floor Austin, TX 78701

Helen S. Gilbert hgilbert@bartonbensonjones.com BARTON BENSON JONES, PLLC 7000 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78731 Edmond McCarthy Ed@ermlawfirm.com MCCARTHY & MCCARTHY, LLP 122 Colorado St. Suite 2399 Austin, TX 78701

Intervenor Defendants- John J. Carlton Appellants: john@carltonlawaustin.com Jonah Water Special Utility District Kelli A. N. Carlton kelli@carltonlawaustin.com Erin R. Selvera erin@carltonlawaustin.com THE CARLTON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 4301 Westbank Drive, Suite B-130 Austin, Texas 78746

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .............................................................2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................6 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TECHNICAL TERMS ..................................8 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................................11 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ...............................................12 ISSUES PRESENTED.............................................................................................13 STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................14 I. New development creates a need for wastewater service. ............................14 II. The City denies service and agrees to allow AIRW to use a private wastewater facility, prompting AIRW to apply for a wastewater permit from TCEQ. ...................................................................................................................15 III. The City seeks judicial review after TCEQ issues the Permit. .....................16 STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................18 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................22 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................24 I. The trial court erred in applying standards not found in statute, Commission rule, or guidance. ..................................................................................................24 A. An applicant is not required to secure denial of an annexation waiver for the Commission to issue the TPDES permit. ....................................................24 B. Texas’ Regionalization Policy does not limit what costs the Commission can consider. ......................................................................................................29 C. The trial court had no basis to substitute its judgment for the Commission’s judgment. ...................................................................................30 II. The Commission’s issuance of the TPDES Permit to AIRW did not prejudice the City’s substantial rights. .................................................................31 A. The City has no statutory or substantial right to serve the property. ......31

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 4 B. The Commission has clear and unambiguous authority over this matter. ................................................................................................................33 C. The Commission followed all constitutional and statutory requirements ......................................................................................................33 D. The Commission followed proper procedure applying Texas’ Regionalization Policy. .....................................................................................35 E. The Commission reasonably exercised its discretion to grant AIRW the permit. ...............................................................................................................37 F. The Commission’s decision to issue the Permit was not arbitrary or capricious. .........................................................................................................39 G. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s final order. ................40 III. There are no other grounds for affirming the trial court’s order. ..................41 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ..............................................................................42 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................45 INDEX TO APPENDIX ..........................................................................................47

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 5 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp. v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex., 698 S.W.3d 198, 207 (Tex. 2024) .....................................................................................................................19 Citizens Against Landfill Location v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 169 S.W.3d 258, 264 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) .................................................19 City of El Paso v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 179, 184 (Tex. 1994) ...20 City of San Antonio v. Texas Water Commission, 407 S.W.2d 752, 756 (1966) ......41 City of Waco v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781, 819-20 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) .............................................................................................20 Dyer v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 646 S.W.3d 498........................................21 Heritage on San Gabriel Homeowners Ass’n v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 393 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet. denied) .............................................40 Hyde v. Harrison Cnty., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1896.............................................21 Jenkins. v. Crosby Indep. Sch. Distr., 537 S.W.3d 142, 149 (Tex. App.-Austin 2017, no pet) ...................................................................................................................18 Lauderdale v. Texas Dep’t of Agric., 923 S.W.2d 834, 836 (Tex. App.— Austin 1996, no writ) ............................................................................................40 McRae v. Lindale Independent School Dist., 450 S.W.2d 118, 1970 Tex. App. LEXIS 1967. .................................................................................................. 40, 41 Mireles v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 9 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. 1999) ......................19 Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564-65, 108 S. Ct. 2541, 101 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1988)....................................................................................................................40 Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex. v. Tex. Indus. Energy Consumers, 620 S.W.3d 418, 427 (Tex. 2021)..................................................................................................... 18, 20 Save Our Springs All., Inc. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 2025 Tex. LEXIS 306 ..................................................................................................... 18, 19, 21, 39 Slay v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 351 S.W.3d 532, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 7278 ......................................................................................................................40 State v. Public Util. Comm’n, 883 S.W.2d 190, 204, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1102 (Tex. 1994) .....................................................................................................................19 Suburban Util. Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 652 S.W.2d 358, 364 (Tex. 1983) .....18

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 6 Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Friends of Dry Comal Creek, 669 S.W.3d 506, 517 (Tex. App.- Austin 2023, pet denied) ..................................................... 20, 39 Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Maverick County, 642 S.W.3d 537, 547 (Tex. 2022) .....................................................................................................................21 Tex. Health Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dall., Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 453 (Tex. 1984)..................................................................................................... 18, 21 Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Alford, 209 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) ..............................................................................................................................21 Texas Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n v. Lukefahr, No. 03-15-00325-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 10855, 2016 WL 5874871, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 6, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) ...............................................................................................20 Statutes Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.051 ....................................................................................33 Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.052 ....................................................................................33 Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174 ....................................................................................18 Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(2) ...............................................................................20 Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.047 ....................................................................................33 Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.047(i-1) .............................................................................21 Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.047(i-2) .............................................................................21 Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.016(1) .................................................................................38 Tex. Water Code § 13.244(c) ...................................................................................32 Tex. Water Code § 26.003 ........................................................................... 24, 29, 37 Tex. Water Code § 26.028 ........................................................................................33 Tex. Water Code § 26.0282 ............................................................................... 24, 38 Tex. Water Code § 26.081 ................................................................................. 24, 37 Tex. Water Code § 5.114 ..........................................................................................33 Tex. Water Code § 5.351 ..........................................................................................18 Tex. Water Code Chapter 65 ....................................................................................32 Rules 16 TAC § 24.225(c)..................................................................................................32 30 TAC § 39.405 ......................................................................................................33 30 TAC § 39.551 ......................................................................................................33

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 7 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TECHNICAL TERMS

Term Meaning

AIRW Intervenor AIR-W 2017-7, L.P., Applicant and Intervenor Defendant-Appellant

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

APA Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Govt. Code §§ 2001.001- .903

Application AIR-W 2017-7, L.P.’s application for a new TPDES permit filed with the TCEQ on April 6, 2020

AR Administrative Record. Contained within the SCR.

CCN Certificate of Convenience and Necessity

City City of Georgetown, Plaintiff-Appellee

Commission Appellant Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

COL Conclusion of Law

CR Clerk’s Record; See also SCR

Draft Permit The draft of TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001 prepared by the Executive Director and sent to the Applicant for public notice on December 3, 2020.

ED Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

ETJ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Existing Use A use that is currently being supported by a specific water body or that was attained on or after November 28, 1975 (30 TAC § 307.3(a)(27).

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 8 Facility Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility that is the subject of TPDES Permit Number WQ0015878001

Final Order Final Order issued by TCEQ on November 28, 2022

FOF Finding of Fact

Implementation Implementation Procedures of the Texas Surface Water Quality Procedures Standards

Jonah Jonah Water Special Utility District, Intervenor Defendant- Appellant

MGD Million Gallons Per Day.

NSSA Non-Standard Service Agreement

OP Ordering Paragraph

Order TCEQ’s final order, issued November 28, 2022

Permit TPDES Permit Number WQ0015878001

PFD Proposal for Decision issued by the Administrative Law Judges of the State Office of Administrative Hearings

Regionalization The combination of Tex. Water Code §§ 26.003, 26.081, and Policy 26.0282, as well as Texas’ Regionalization Guidance – Information posted on TCEQ website at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater/tceq- regionalization-for-wastewater

RR Reporter’s Record

SCR Supplemental Clerk’s Record

SOAH State Office of Administrative Hearings

TAC Texas Administrative Code

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“Commission”) Defendant-Appellant

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 9 TPDES Texas Polluant Discharge Elimination System

TSWQS Texas Surface Water Quality Standards

TWC Texas Water Code

Water Quality Texas Surface Water Quality Standards in 30 TAC Ch. 307. Standards

Westinghouse Appellants, 600 Westinghouse Investments, LLC and 800 Entities Westinghouse Investments, LLC Intervenors in District Court.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: This is a suit for judicial review of a final order of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or Commission) granting a new Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (wastewater) permit, pursuant to Texas Water Code Chapter 26, to AIRW. The permit authorizes AIRW to construct a new wastewater treatment plant in Williamson County, Texas. After participating in an extensive contested- case hearing before the Commission, the City of Georgetown sought judicial review of the Commission’s final order in Travis County District Court. Course of Proceedings: After briefing on all issues, the Travis County district court held a hearing on the merits on October 31, 2024.1 RR at 1. Trial Court: 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County

Presiding Judge: The Honorable Laurie Eiserloh Trial Court Disposition: The district court reversed the Commission’s final order granting AIRW’s wastewater permit and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the order. CR at 730-731.

1 The Administrative Record (AR) was admitted into evidence at the hearing on the merits as Joint Exhibit 1. RR at 5. The AR consists of four components: Documents, Exhibits, Public Comments, and Transcripts. The Supplemental Clerk’s Record (SCR) contains the AR (Joint Exhibit1), the contents of which have item numbers assigned. Citations to the AR will be to SCR-AR [item number] (example: SCR-AR 11 (ED’s Response to Public Comment) at 1).

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 11 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Jonah respectfully requests oral argument. This case involves the complex

statutory and regulatory scheme surrounding water quality and TCEQ’s

administration of its wastewater permitting program. Oral argument will provide an

opportunity to elucidate details impacting the Court’s in its consideration of the

issues presented.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 12 ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Did the District Court err in reversing the Commission’s final order based on

factors not found in statute or Texas’ Regionalization Policy?

2. Was the Commission’s final order issued in accordance with proper procedure

and applicable law, a reasonable exercise of the Commission’s broad

discretion, and supported by substantial evidence?

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 13 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Statement of Facts in TCEQ’s brief includes a comprehensive explanation

of the history of Texas’ wastewater permitting program, including TCEQ’s authority

regarding Texas’ Regionalization Policy. Jonah agrees with this explanation and thus

to avoid redundancy and duplicity, Jonah adopts by reference that portion of TCEQ’s

brief.

I. New development creates a need for wastewater service.

This case involves a challenge to the Commission’s approval of a permit for

a wastewater treatment facility that will serve two new residential developments.

Due to the construction of SH-130, the area east of the City of Georgetown is the

latest “new frontier” for development in Williamson County. New developments and

the City have been plowing east through the farmland toward the existing rural

communities that make up Jonah’s service area. For decades, Jonah, a political

subdivision of the State of Texas operating under Texas Water Code Chapter 65, has

been the water and, in some cases, the sewer service provider for the historically

rural communities within Jonah’s 169 square mile district boundaries.

In this case, AIRW and its fellow developers are seeking to develop 128 acres,

partially within the City of Georgetown’s eastern extraterritorial jurisdiction, and

within Jonah’s district boundaries on its western side. 2 AR 167 at 00002-0003.

There is no regional provider designated for the area where the Facility is proposed

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 14 to be located. 1 AR 66. However, the City of Georgetown does have a wastewater

treatment facility within three miles of AIRW’s development.

II. The City denies service and agrees to allow AIRW to use a private wastewater facility, prompting AIRW to apply for a wastewater permit from TCEQ. Through a series of communications with the City regarding possible

wastewater service, the developer learned that the City would not provide

wastewater service to the development without voluntary annexation in accordance

with City ordinance. See City of Georgetown Ordinance No. 2003-16 (May 25,

2003). Additionally, the City agreed to allow AIRW to develop in the ETJ with a

private system. 1 AR 103. Therefore, AIRW applied to the TCEQ for a new

wastewater permit. AIRW filed its application (Application) for a new TPDES

permit with TCEQ on April 6, 2020. 1 AR 66. The Application requested

authorization to discharge treated domestic wastewater from a proposed plant site,

the Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility (Facility), to be located

approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Rockride Lane (County Road

110) and Westinghouse Road (County Road 111), in Williamson County, Texas

78626. AIRW proposed to build the Facility to serve the Mansions of Georgetown

III development, an 880-house subdivision. 1 AR 66.

The TCEQ Executive Director (ED) declared the Application administratively

complete on June 19, 2020, and technically complete on October 26, 2020. 1 AR 2.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 15 The ED completed the technical review of the Application, prepared a draft permit

(Draft Permit) and made it available for public review and comment. 1 AR 9.

Various individuals and the City submitted comments and hearing requests. In

response, on November 3, 2021, the Commission referred this matter to SOAH to

address eight issues raised in public comment. 1 AR 19. SOAH conducted a hearing

on the merits from May 23-25, via video conference where the parties presented

written and live testimony and evidence and then filed post hearing briefing on all

issues. 1 AR 25. Having considered all of the testimony and evidence, SOAH issued

a proposal for decision (PFD) and Proposed Order that included eighty-one findings

of fact, and nineteen conclusions of law on August 23, 2022. 1 AR 59. The

Commission adopted SOAH’s PFD and Proposed Order with only four substantive

changes and granted Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No.

WQ0015878001 to AIRW, effective November 28, 2022. 1 AR 66.

III. The City seeks judicial review after TCEQ issues the Permit.

The City of Georgetown filed a petition for judicial review of the

Commission’s order in Travis County District Court. CR 5. AIRW and Jonah

intervened as defendants. CR 145. The City raised all eight issues originally

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 16 considered in the contested case hearing at SOAH. CR 5. After written briefing, the

trial court held a hearing on the merits on October 31, 2024. RR 1.

On December 2, 2024, the trial court issued a final judgment reversing and

remanding to the Commission for further proceedings. CR 730. The court’s Order

listed two reasons as the basis for its reversal:

1. Defendant erred by determining that the Permit complies with Texas’s Regionalization Policy.

2. Because Intervenor AIRW failed to seek a waiver from Plaintiff’s city council, there is no way to know whether the city council would be willing to waive the annexation requirement. It is unreasonable to assume that City staff—who are bound by the city council—speak for the city council, which is not bound and has both the power to waive requirements and the ability to act under political considerations. This means that Defendant should not have determined both that (1) Plaintiff denied Intervenor AIRW service; and (2) connection to Plaintiff’s system would cost Intervenor AIRW $20 million.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The substantial evidence standard of review applies to this suit for judicial

review of the final order of the Commission following a contested-case hearing. Tex.

Gov’t Code § 2001.174; Tex. Water Code § 5.351. Under the APA, a court reviewing

an agency’s decision in a contested case “may not substitute its judgment for the

judgment of the state agency on the weight of the evidence on questions committed

to agency discretion.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174. “To prevent courts from

“usurping the agency’s adjudicative authority,” an agency’s findings, inferences,

conclusions, and decisions are presumed to be sufficient unless the protestant proves

otherwise.” Save Our Springs All., Inc. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 2025 Tex.

LEXIS 306; citing Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex. v. Tex. Indus. Energy Consumers, 620

S.W.3d 418, 427 (Tex. 2021). The Court must uphold the agency’s decision if the

evidence “is such that reasonable minds could have reached the conclusion that the

agency must have reached in order to justify its action.” Tex. Health Facilities

Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dall., Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 453 (Tex. 1984) (citing

Suburban Util. Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 652 S.W.2d 358, 364 (Tex. 1983)).

Courts describe this as “a rational-basis test to determine, as a matter of law, whether

an agency’s order finds reasonable support in the record.” Jenkins. v. Crosby Indep.

Sch. Distr., 537 S.W.3d 142, 149 (Tex. App.-Austin 2017, no pet) citing Tex. Health

Facilities Comm’n v. Charter Med.-Dall., Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 452-53 (Tex. 1984).

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 18 Substantial evidence is a limited standard of review that gives significant

deference to the agency in its field of expertise. Save Our Springs All., Inc. v. Tex.

Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 2025 Tex. LEXIS 306; citing Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp.

v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex., 698 S.W.3d 198, 207 (Tex. 2024) (internal quote marks and

citations omitted). The issue is “not whether the agency’s decision was correct, but

only whether the record demonstrates some reasonable basis for the agency’s

action.” Id. citing Mireles v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 9 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. 1999);

Citizens Against Landfill Location v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 169 S.W.3d

258, 264 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). In fact, “the evidence in the record

may actually preponderate against the agency’s decision and nonetheless amount to

substantial evidence.” Citizens Against Landfill Location v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl.

Quality, 169 S.W.3d 258, 264 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). See also State

v. Public Util. Comm’n, 883 S.W.2d 190, 204, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1102 (Tex. 1994).

A reviewing court may only reverse or remand a case for further proceedings

“if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the

administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (A) in violation of

a constitutional or statutory provision; (B) in excess of the agency’s statutory

authority; (C) made through unlawful procedure; (D) affected by other error of law;

(E) not reasonably supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable and

probative evidence in the record as a whole; or (F) arbitrary or capricious or

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 19 characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(2). A Commission decision is arbitrary if it: “(1) failed

to consider a factor the legislature directs it to consider; (2) considers an irrelevant

factor; or (3) weighs only relevant factors that the legislature directs it to consider

but still reaches a completely unreasonable result.” Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex. v. Tex.

Indus. Energy Consumers, 620 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. 2021); City of El Paso v. Pub. Util.

Comm’n of Tex., 883 S.W.2d 179, 184 (Tex. 1994). In addition to these factors, courts

have found agency orders to be arbitrary or capricious if the agency denies a litigant

due process so as to prejudice its rights, and where the agency fails to follow the

clear, unambiguous language of its own regulations. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality

v. Friends of Dry Comal Creek, 669 S.W.3d 506, 517 (Tex. App.- Austin 2023, pet

denied). In general terms, “we must remand for arbitrariness if we conclude that the

agency ‘has not actually taken a hard look at the salient problems and has not

genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.’” Id.; citing Texas Health & Hum.

Servs. Comm’n v. Lukefahr, No. 03-15-00325-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 10855,

2016 WL 5874871, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 6, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(quoting City of Waco v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 346 S.W.3d 781, 819-20

(Tex. App.—Austin 2011), rev’d on other grounds).

The agency’s decision is presumed to be supported by substantial evidence,

placing the burden on the contestant to prove otherwise. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 20 Quality v. Maverick County, 642 S.W.3d 537, 547 (Tex. 2022) (quoting Charter

Med.-Dall., Inc., 665 S.W.2d at 453). “Whether the contestant has met this burden

is a question of law,” Hyde v. Harrison Cnty., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1896; citing

Dyer v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 646 S.W.3d 498, “and on review, we focus

on the agency’s decision without deference to the district court's judgment,” Id.,

citing Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Alford, 209 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex. 2006) (per

curiam) (noting that appellate court applies substantial evidence review without

deference to district court).

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 2003.047(i-1), when the Commission issues

a TPDES permit, there is a statutory presumption that the permit complies with all

state and federal legal and technical requirements. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.047(i-1).

To rebut this presumption, a party must present evidence demonstrating that one or

more provisions of the draft permit violate a specifically applicable state or federal

requirement. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.047(i-2).

In the end, “each of the statutory grounds for reversal, including substantial

evidence review, is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Save Our Springs

All., Inc. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 2025 Tex. LEXIS 306; quoting Dyer v.

Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 646 S.W.3d 498, 505 (Tex. 2022).

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 21 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The trial court erred when applying standards not found in statute in lieu of

applying the substantial evidence standard of review to the Commission’s findings

and conclusions. Instead of evaluating the facts to determine whether there was a

reasonable basis for the Commission’s decision and whether substantial record

evidence supports this decision, the trial court usurped the Commission’s authority

by re-weighing evidence and substituting its judgment for the agency’s judgment.

The trial court’s reinterpretation of Texas’ Regionalization Policy included adding a

requirement that an applicant for a TPDES permit must secure a formal denial of an

annexation waiver before the Commission can determine that the City denied

service. No such requirement exists in law or policy. Further, the trial court applied

an arbitrary limitation on the cost-related information the Commission may consider

when determining whether the applicant has demonstrated that an exception to

regionalization should be granted. Again, no such limitation regarding cost data

exists in law or policy. For these reasons, there was no basis for the trial court to

second guess the Commission.

Further, the trial court erred in reversing and remanding the Commission’s

final order because the City failed to demonstrate that its substantial rights were

prejudiced by the Commission’s issuance of the Permit to AIRW. The City has no

fundamental right to serve the property within its ETJ, particularly given that the

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 22 property is partially within Jonah’s district boundary. Moreover, the Commission has

clear and unambiguous authority to issue the Permit having followed all

constitutional and statutory requirements, proper procedures, and reasonably

exercising its discretion. The facts and evidence presented during the contested case

hearing demonstrate that the Commission had ample evidence to support issuance

of the Permit to AIRW.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 23 ARGUMENT

I. The trial court erred in applying standards not found in statute, Commission rule, or guidance. The trial court inappropriately delved into the underlying process of AIRW’s

numerous and consistent requests to the City regarding wastewater service. Instead

of focusing on whether the record demonstrates some reasonable basis for the

Commission’s action, the trial court probed into whether the agency’s decision was

correct, subsuming a requirement that AIRW secure a formal denial of an annexation

waiver from the City Council before deeming the City denied service. Additionally,

the trial court ignored the Commission’s deference with regard to what cost data

supports an exception to regionalization.

A. An applicant is not required to secure denial of an annexation waiver for the Commission to issue the TPDES permit. Texas’ Regionalization Policy is codified in Tex. Water Code § 26.003, Tex.

Water Code § 26.081, and Tex. Water Code § 26.0282. These sections state:

Sec. 26.003. POLICY OF THIS SUBCHAPTER. It is the policy of this state and the purpose of this subchapter to maintain the quality of water in the state consistent with the public health and enjoyment, the propagation and protection of terrestrial and aquatic life, and the operation of existing industries, taking into consideration the economic development of the state; to encourage and promote the development and use of regional and areawide waste collection, treatment, and disposal systems to serve the waste disposal needs of the citizens of the state; and to require the use of all reasonable methods to implement this policy.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 24 Sec. 26.081. REGIONAL OR AREA-WIDE SYSTEMS; GENERAL POLICY. (a) The legislature finds and declares that it is necessary to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this state to implement the state policy to encourage and promote the development and use of regional and area-wide waste collection, treatment, and disposal systems to serve the waste disposal needs of the citizens of the state and to prevent pollution and maintain and enhance the quality of the water in the state. (b) Within any standard metropolitan statistical area in the state, the commission is authorized to implement this policy in the manner and in accordance with the procedure provided in Sections 26.081 through 26.086 of this code. (d) The term “standard metropolitan statistical area,” as used in this section, means an area consisting of a county or one or more contiguous counties which is officially designated as such by the United States Office of Management and Budget or its successor in this function.

Sec. 26.0282. CONSIDERATION OF NEED AND REGIONAL TREATMENT OPTIONS. In considering the issuance, amendment, or renewal of a permit to discharge waste, the commission may deny or alter the terms and conditions of the proposed permit, amendment, or renewal based on consideration of need, including the expected volume and quality of the influent and the availability of existing or proposed areawide or regional waste collection, treatment, and disposal systems not designated as such by commission order pursuant to provisions of this subchapter. This section is expressly directed to the control and treatment of conventional pollutants normally found in domestic wastewater. As reflected above, the statute does not specify any specific methods the

Commission must employ to implement the policy, but dictates that the Commission

use all reasonable methods to encourage and promote regional systems. Nowhere

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 25 do these sections specify the type of information the Commission can or must

consider when determining the availability of a regional system.

The Commission’s informal guidance, posted on its website, provides some

detail confirming that “[t]he presence of a wastewater treatment facility or

wastewater collection system within three miles of a proposed new wastewater

treatment facility or the expansion of an existing facility is not an automatic basis to

deny an application or to compel an applicant to connect to an existing facility.”

(Emphasis added.) 2 AR 98. The guidance lists four situations where “TCEQ may

approve new, renewal, and major amendment applications for discharges of

wastewater.” 2 AR 98.

• There is no wastewater treatment facility or collection system within three miles of the proposed facility.

• The applicant requested service from wastewater treatment facilities within the three miles, and the request was denied.

• The applicant can successfully demonstrate that an exception to regionalization should be granted based on costs, affordable rates, and/or other relevant factors.

• The applicant has obtained a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for the service area of the proposed new facility or the proposed expansion of the existing facility.

AIRW provided evidence of, and the Commission based its decision on, two

of these situations: that AIRW’s service request was effectively denied, and that

AIRW demonstrated that an exception to the Regionalization Policy should be

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 26 granted based on costs. As with the statute, the guidance does not specify the type of

evidence necessary to make a demonstration, nor does it limit the Commission’s

discretion to consider a broad range of evidence. Given this, the trial court had no

basis for substituting its judgment for the Commission’s judgment.

Further, the guidance states: “TCEQ has not denied any wastewater permit

actions based solely on regionalization, and the agency supports new applicants and

existing facilities productively working together to provide quality and cost-

effective service.” 2 AR 98. This statement further supports the Commission’s

discretion and the weight the Commission gives to the Regionalization Policy when

determining whether to issue a TPDES permit.

The Commission documented its findings and conclusions with regard to

effective denial of service. The Commission’s final order, Findings of Fact 33-42

lay out the basis for the Commission’s Conclusion of Law 10 that: “The Application

demonstrates compliance with TCEQ’s regionalization policy. Tex. Water Code §§

26.003, 26.081(a)-(b), (d); 26.0282.” 1 AR 66.

33. To effectuate its policy of encouraging regionalization of wastewater services, TCEQ requires an applicant to provide certain information to allow TCEQ to conduct a regionalization analysis. 34. No part of the Facility or development is within the City’s corporate limits. 35. The proposed Facility and its discharge are within the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 27 36. Properties in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction that desire wastewater services from the City must first submit a petition for voluntary annexation. 37. The ordinance requiring annexation for wastewater services may be waived by the City Council. 38. As part of its Application, AIRW provided email correspondence to and from nearby providers regarding whether they would provide sewer service. 39. AIRW’s written communications with nearby providers were sufficient, and AIRW was not required to submit certified letters because the emails provide similar tracking and traceability. 40. AIRW explored securing wastewater services from the City, and the City placed conditions on providing service; including: the Facility site would have to be annexed into the City and comply with the City’s land use restrictions. 41. There was no indication that the City was willing to waive the annexation and land use requirements. 42. AIRW received a conditional offer for sewer service from the City. The City denied AIRW’s request for service unless AIRW agreed to annexation and land use restrictions. 1 AR 66 (20221130 Order Permit 2021-1214*-MWD.pdf) The Commission’s findings and conclusions document the Commission’s

hard look at the salient problems and show that the Commission genuinely engaged

in reasoned decision-making. The findings and conclusions constitute substantial

evidence and support the Commission’s rational basis for issuing the Permit.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 28 B. Texas’ Regionalization Policy does not limit what costs the Commission can consider.

Texas’ Regionalization Policy, Tex. Water Code § 26.003, also encourages the

Commission to take into consideration the economic development of the state. But

again, the statute provides no detail regarding what economic information can or

should be considered. The statute does not limit the Commission’s discretion to

consider the cost impacts of the City’s annexation requirements and development

regulations. Further, the Commission’s informal guidance only provides a general

statement regarding the factors that can form the basis for demonstrating an

exception to regionalization: “The applicant can successfully demonstrate that an

exception to regionalization should be granted based on costs, affordable rates,

and/or other relevant factors.” 2 AR 98.

The Commission documented its findings and conclusions with regard to cost.

In the Commission’s final order, Findings of Fact 43-46 provide the basis for the

Commission’s Conclusion of Law 10 that: “The Application demonstrates

compliance with TCEQ’s regionalization policy. Tex. Water Code §§ 26.003,

26.081(a)-(b), (d); 26.0282.” 1 AR 66.

43. The ED requested from AIRW a cost analysis of expenditures that includes the cost of connecting to the CCN facilities versus the cost of the proposed facility or expansion. 44. Constructing a new plant will cost approximately $300,000 more than connecting to the City’s system.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 29 45. Because of the higher property tax rate inside the City than outside it in the unincorporated area and the City’s condition of annexation to connect to its system, connecting carries with it an approximately $20 million cost due to diminution in property value. 46. Costs weigh in favor of granting AIRW’s application.

Like denial of service, the Commission’s findings and conclusions document

the Commission’s hard look at the salient problems and show that the Commission

genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making. The findings and conclusions

constitute substantial evidence and support the Commission’s rational basis for

issuing the Permit. The trial court improperly usurped the Commission’s judgment

in this regard.

C. The trial court had no basis to substitute its judgment for the Commission’s judgment.

Having documented the facts and evidence the Commission relied upon for

determining that the City denied service and that the costs of complying with the

City’s requirements weigh in favor of granting AIRW’s application, the Commission

established its rational basis for issuing the TPDES Permit. The Commission

committed no error warranting reversal under the substantial evidence rule. Instead,

the trial court committed reversible error by substituting its judgment for the

Commission’s judgment in lieu of finding that substantial evidence supports the

Commission’s decision.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 30 II. The Commission’s issuance of the TPDES Permit to AIRW did not prejudice the City’s substantial rights.

Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(2), under the substantial evidence

rule, a court shall reverse or remand a decision in a contested case for further

proceedings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the

administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(A) in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision; (B) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (C) made through unlawful procedure; (D) affected by other error of law; (E) not reasonably supported by substantial evidence considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole; or (F) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

A. The City has no statutory or substantial right to serve the property.

No part of AIRW’s permitted Facility or development is within the City’s

corporate limits. 1 AR 66. Also, the proposed Facility and its discharge are not

within the sewer CCN of any retail public utility. Id. Instead, the proposed Facility

and its discharge are within the City’s ETJ, partially within Jonah’s district

boundaries, and wholly within Jonah’s water CCN area. Id.

In general, cities have limited authority within their ETJ. While a city can

typically provide utility service within its ETJ, evidence in the record reflects that

the City requires property owners to voluntarily annex into the City limits to have

access to wastewater services. That being said, even if the City had desired to serve

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 31 AIRW, it could not have done so legally. A portion of AIRW’s development is within

Jonah’s district boundaries. Jonah is a special utility district, a political subdivision

of the State of Texas operating under Tex. Water Code Chapter 65, and the holder of

water CCN No. 10970, in Williamson County, Texas. As a special utility district,

Jonah has the authority to provide water and wastewater service anywhere within its

district boundaries. At the time Jonah filed its revised direct testimony in May of

2022, Jonah provided service to approximately 9,000 customers and 30,000 people

in its service area. 2 2 AR 176.

Furthermore, Tex. Water Code § 13.244(c), and 16 TAC § 24.225(c) require

the City to secure Jonah’s consent to provide service within Jonah’s district

boundaries. The City is a retail public utility as defined in the Texas Water Code and

Commission rules. Tex. Water Code § 13.244(c) requires an entity seeking to provide

water or wastewater service to provide the Public Utility Commission evidence that

it has received the required consent. Commission rules are more direct, stating in

pertinent part “a retail public utility may not provide retail water or sewer utility

service within the boundaries of a district that provides the same type of retail water

or sewer utility service without the district’s consent….” 16 TAC § 24.225(c). Here,

2 As of 2025, Jonah’s customer base has grown to approximately 13,500 customers and 35,000 people in its service area.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 32 the Commission found that “[t]he City did not request Jonah’s consent to provide

wastewater service to the Facility, and Jonah has not given consent for the City to

operate within its boundaries.” (FOF 52) 1 AR 66. The City failed to demonstrate

that service was available because it lacked authority to serve. Consequently, the

Commission concluded that AIRW’s Application complies with TCEQ’s

Regionalization Policy and issued the Permit. (COL 10.) 1 AR 66.

B. The Commission has clear and unambiguous authority over this matter.

The parties do not dispute that the Commission has jurisdiction over this

matter pursuant to TWC Chapters 5 and 26. 1 AR 66. The parties do not dispute that

SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing and to prepare a PFD in contested cases

referred by the Commission under Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.047. Id.

C. The Commission followed all constitutional and statutory requirements The City received notice and due process through the contested case hearing

process. The City received notice in accordance with Tex. Water Code § 5.114 and

Tex. Water Code § 26.028; Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.051 and Tex. Gov’t Code §

2001.052; and 30 TAC § 39.405 and 30 TAC § 39.551. 1 AR 66.

The Commission applied all relevant and applicable, statutory and regulatory,

procedural and technical requirements. The ED declared the Application

administratively complete on June 19, 2020, and technically complete on October

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 33 26, 2020. 1 AR 66. The ED completed the technical review of the Application,

prepared a draft permit (Draft Permit) and made the Draft Permit available for public

review and comment. Id. AIRW published the Notice of Receipt and Intent to Obtain

a Water Quality Permit and Notice of Application and Preliminary Decision in

accordance with Commission rules. Id. The City submitted comments on the

Application, and the ED provided his Response to Public Comments on August 6,

2021. Id. The Commission referred eight issues to SOAH for a hearing on the merits.

A) Issue A: Whether the Draft Permit is protective of water quality and the Existing Uses of the receiving waters in accordance with applicable TSWQS, including protection of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife;

B) Issue B: Whether the Draft Permit is consistent with the state’s Regionalization Policy and demonstration of need for the volume requested in the application for a new discharge permit pursuant to TWC § 26.0282; C) Issue C: Whether the Draft Permit is protective of the health of the nearby residents; D) Issue D: Whether the Draft Permit complies with applicable requirements regarding nuisance odors;

E) Issue E: Whether the Application is substantially complete and accurate; F) Issue F: Whether the Draft Permit complies with the TCEQ’s antidegradation policy and procedures; G) Issue G: Whether the Draft Permit should be altered or denied based on the AIRW’s compliance history; and H) Issue H: Whether the Draft Permit contains sufficient provisions to ensure protection of water quality, including necessary operational requirements.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 34 After two preliminary hearings, the SOAH ALJs conducted a hearing on the

merits on May 23-25, 2022. The City participated in all proceedings at SOAH.

While the City may not agree with the outcome of the hearing or the Commission’s

ultimate decision, the record documents and supports all of the Commission’s

inferences, findings, and conclusions by substantial evidence considering the

reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole. The Commission’s final

order documents its findings and conclusions, demonstrating the agency’s reasoned

decision-making forming the reasonable basis for the Commission’s decision to

issue the Permit to AIRW. Without a deficiency in the process, the district court erred

in reversing and remanding the matter back to the Commission.

D. The Commission followed proper procedure applying Texas’ Regionalization Policy. As discussed in Section I. above, the Commission applied all three statutory

provisions in Chapter 26 of the Water Code that form Texas’ Regionalization Policy

as well as the Commission’s informal guidance on the topic. The Commission

required AIRW to provide documentation of the communications and attempts to

reach an agreement with the City regarding wastewater service to the property.

AIRW documented four different communications with the City regarding

wastewater service:

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 35 1. June 21, 2019 email from Georgetown City manager, David Munk stating: “…using our WW will require voluntary annexation.” 2 AR 100.

2. January 22, 2020 email from Georgetown Planning Director, Sofia Nelson stating: “Should you desire to connect to the City wastewater system annexation will be required. We do not support a delayed annexation approach at this point.” 2 AR 107.

3. February 10, 2020 Email from Georgetown Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed stating: “We do not desire or require connection to Georgetown wastewater. I understand that you prefer to not connect to the City's public wastewater system. Both in our meeting and in Sofia's e-mail communication with you, we have been clear that should you desire or need to connect to the City's wastewater system you would have annex [submit a petition for voluntary annexation per City's UDC]; Sofia provided you with the pertinent UDC provisions that speak to this. Also, Sofia confirmed that we do not support a delayed annexation approach. Because you do not want to annex, you can develop in the ETJ with a private water treatment facility.” (Emphasis added.) 2 AR 107.

4. May 15, 2020 email from Georgetown Assistant City Manager Wayne Reed stating: “ …nothing Wes said on our call yesterday should have been construed as the City entertaining providing wastewater service to this project in the ETJ. We have had multiple meetings and communications with Matt Hiles on this topic, have explained our position in detail, and there is no need to revisit this request as the City’s position remains the same; annexation will be required in order to receive wastewater service from the City.”

Each time the City was clear and consistent in its position that voluntary

annexation was required to receive wastewater service to the property. The City’s

February 2020 email went as far as conveying that AIRW can develop with a private

wastewater treatment facility. These communications document the reasonable basis

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 36 for the Commission’s determination that the City was denying service to AIRW. The

Commission also documented the City’s failure to secure consent to serve within

Jonah’s district boundaries, further supporting the Commission’s findings regarding

regionalization. The Commission acted without prejudice to any of the City’s rights.

To the contrary, the City’s February 2020 email could be construed as the City’s

acquiescence to issuance of the TPDES Permit and waiver of the City’s right to

protest it.

E. The Commission reasonably exercised its discretion to grant AIRW the permit. Texas’ Regionalization Policy is replete with discretionary terms, confirming

the Commission’s broad discretion to issue the TPDES Permit even when there is a

nearby wastewater system. For example, rather than using strict and mandatory

terms like “enforce” or “require”, Tex. Water Code § 26.003 and Tex. Water Code §

26.081 use the phrase “encourage and promote,” which automatically incorporates

discretion in the implementation of the state’s Regionalization Policy. And, while

the last clause of Section 26.003 begins with the stricter term “require”, that term is

softened by the phrase, “all reasonable methods to implement this policy.” Rather

than dictating a particular construct or method by which the Commission must

implement the policy, the Legislature granted the Commission discretion to

determine the means and methods of implementation as long as the methods are

reasonable Id.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 37 The Legislature granted similar discretionary powers to the Commission in

Tex. Water Code § 26.0282, using the term “may” when describing the

Commission’s authority to deny or alter the terms and conditions of a proposed

permit, amendment or renewal based on consideration of need and availability. Tex.

Water Code § 26.0282. In accordance with the Code Construction Act, the word

“may” “creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.” Tex. Gov’t

Code § 311.016(1).

The Commission’s discretion is also evident in the applicable guidance. For

example, the wastewater permit application instructions required AIRW to provide

documentation of need and the availability of wastewater systems within three miles.

However, the Regionalization Policy guidance explains that “the presence of a

wastewater treatment facility or collection system within three miles of the proposed

facility… does not compel connection to the existing facility.” 2 AR 98. The

Commission must evaluate the facts and circumstances to reach its determination.

In this case, the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion when determining

that AIRW was not required to connect to the City’s system based in part on the

City’s annexation and development requirements, which would force the developer

to annex into the City and develop the property for a different end use. The

Commission found that the annexation requirement was tantamount to denial of

service. (FOF 42). 1 AR 66.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 38 F. The Commission’s decision to issue the Permit was not arbitrary or capricious.

An agency acts arbitrarily or abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a

mandatory factor, considers an irrelevant factor, considers appropriate factors but

reaches a completely unreasonable result, or fails to follow its own regulations. Save

Our Springs All., Inc. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl Quality, 2025 Tex. LEXIS 306, *15-

17. An agency decision may also be considered arbitrary or capricious if the agency

failed to follow the clear, unambiguous language of its own regulations; the agency

denied the appellant due process so as to prejudice its substantial rights; or the order

is not supported by substantial evidence. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Friends

of Dry Comal Creek, 669 S.W.3d 506, 517 (Tex. App.- Austin 2023, pet denied).

Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Commission considered each of the

elements of the wastewater Permit Application. The Commission considered the

mandatory, relevant and appropriate factors when making the findings and

conclusions that are the basis for its decision to issue the Permit to AIRW. Further,

the Commission’s final order documents the findings and conclusions. 1 AR 66.

Where a finding or conclusion was unnecessary or inappropriate, the Commission

excluded it. For example, the Commission deleted findings of fact 53 and 54 as

unnecessary. Id. Section III also includes the Commission’s explanation of its

revisions to Findings of Fact 3 and 5. Id. This detail, and the Commission’s

explanation of the changes, documents the Commission’s “hard look” at the salient

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 39 problems, showing that the Commission genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-

making. Heritage on San Gabriel Homeowners Ass’n v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl.

Quality, 393 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet. denied).

As a point of comparison, the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously

when it imposed the requirement that AIRW seek and get a formal denial of its

annexation waiver from the City Council. This addition of an irrelevant factor to the

analysis is not based on any statute, rule or guidance and is well beyond the bounds

of discretion the Commission may exercise. For this reason, the district court’s

arbitrary and capricious decision is reversible error.

G. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s final order. As to the quantum of evidence necessary to constitute substantial evidence,

the courts recognize that more than a “scintilla” is required. McRae v. Lindale

Independent School Dist., 450 S.W.2d 118, 1970 Tex. App. LEXIS 1967. However,

“‘substantial evidence’ does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence,

but such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support

a conclusion of fact.” Slay v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 351 S.W.3d 532, 2011

Tex. App. LEXIS 7278; citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564-65, 108 S.

Ct. 2541, 101 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1988); Lauderdale v. Texas Dep’t of Agric., 923 S.W.2d

834, 836 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, no writ). In this case, substantial evidence

supports the Commission’s final order issuing the Permit to AIRW. The record

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 40 consists of hundreds of pages of exhibits, written and live testimony, as well as the

Permit Application and the ED’s analysis. These documents constitute the body of

credible evidence necessary to support the Commission’s findings and conclusions.

It matters not whether the district court or this court would have reached the same

fact conclusion that the Commission reached, but this court should consider whether

the action of the Commission in its determination of the facts is reasonably supported

by substantial evidence. McRae v. Lindale Independent School Dist., 450 S.W.2d

118, 122, 1970 Tex. App. LEXIS 1967, *8-9; citing City of San Antonio v. Texas

Water Commission, 407 S.W.2d 752, 756 (1966). Here, the Commission’s final order

is supported by sufficient documentary and testamentary evidence meeting the

substantial evidence standard.

III. There are no other grounds for affirming the trial court’s order. The Commission found that City failed to rebut: the prime facie demonstration

that the Draft Permit is protective of water quality and the Existing Uses of the

receiving waters in accordance with applicable TSWQS, including protection of

aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (FOF 26); the prima facie demonstration that the Draft

Permit is protective of the health of nearby residents (FOF 55); the prima facie

demonstration that the Application is substantially complete and accurate (FOF 62);

the prima facie demonstration that the Draft Permit complies with TCEQ’s anti-

degradation policy and procedures (FOF 65); and the prima facie demonstration that

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 41 the Draft Permit contains sufficient provisions to ensure protection of water quality,

including necessary operational requirements (FOF 74). Additionally, the

Commission found that the City did not rebut the prima facie demonstration that one

or more provisions in the Draft Permit violate a specifically applicable state or

federal requirement that relates to a matter referred by TCEQ. 1 AR 66. Although

the City appealed all eight issues considered in the contested case hearing, the trial

court’s final judgment reversed and remanded on a single basis, regionalization. CR

5-17, 730. The Court held that TCEQ erred by determining that the Permit complies

with Texas’ Regionalization Policy. The court’s judgment disposed of all other

claims. CR 731.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Commission acted reasonably

and within its authority and discretion in granting AIRW the TPDES Permit.

Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Permit complies with all applicable

statutory and regulatory requirements and with Texas’ Regionalization Policy. None

of the City’s substantial rights were violated, and thus, the district court erred in

reversing the Commission’s order. For these reasons, Jonah respectfully prays that

the Court reverse the district court’s judgment and render judgment affirming the

Commission’s Order in all respects. Jonah further prays the Court grant Jonah all

further relief to which it may be entitled.

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 42 Respectfully submitted,

Erin R. Selvera John J. Carlton State Bar No. 03817600 john@carltonlawaustin.com Kelli A. N. Carlton State Bar No. 15091175 kelli@carltonlawaustin.com Erin R. Selvera State Bar No. 24043385 erin@carltonlawaustin.com THE CARLTON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 4301 Westbank Drive, Suite B-130 Austin, Texas 78746 Telephone: (512) 614-0901 Facsimile: (512) 900-2855 ATTORNEYS FOR JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 43 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the Brief of Appellant, Jonah Water Special Utility District contains 6,676 words and therefore complies with the word limit found in Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B).

_________________________ Erin R. Selvera

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the Brief of Appellant, Jonah Water Special Utility District was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the electronic case filing system of the Court, and that a true and correct copy was served upon counsel for each party of record, listed below, by electronic service or email on May 21, 2025.

Defendant-Appellant Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Evan Greene Assistant Solicitor General Evan.Greene@oag.texas.gov Sara J. Ferris Assistant Attorney General Sara.Ferris@oag.texas.gov OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548, MC-066 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2012 Fax: (512) 320-0911 Plaintiff-Appellee City of Georgetown, Texas: William A. Faulk, III cfaulk@spencerfane.com Carlota Hopinks-Baul chbaul@spencerfane.com Maris M. Chambers mchambers@spencerfane.com SPENCER FANE, LLP 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 512-840-4550 Fax: 512-840-4551 Patricia Erlinger Carls tcarls@tcarlslaw.com LAW OFFICES OF PATRICIA ERLINGER CARLS

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 45 3100 Glenview Ave. Austin, Texas 78703-1443

Intervenor Defendants-Appellants: AIRW 2017-7, L.P.; 600 Westinghouse Investments, LLC; and 800 Westinghouse Investments, LLC Andrew Davis Andrew@lkcfirm.com William T. Thompson will@lkcfirm.com Todd Disher todd@lkcfirm.com Michael C. Cotton michael@lkcfirm.com LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN, LLP 408 W. 11th Street, 5th Floor Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: 512-693-8350

Helen S. Gilbert hgilbert@bartonbensonjones.com BARTON BENSON JONES, PLLC 7000 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78731

Edmond McCarthy Ed@ermlawfirm.com MCCARTHY & MCCARTHY, LLP 122 Colorado St. Suite 2399 Austin, TX 78701

_________________________ Erin R. Selvera

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 46 INDEX TO APPENDIX

1. Final Judgement, December 2, 2024 2. TCEQ’s Final Order and TPDES Permit No WQ 0015878001, November 28, 2022 3. Application TPDES Permit 4. TCEQ Regionalization Policy for Wastewater Treatment 5. 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 24.225 6. 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.405 7. 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.551 8. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.016 9. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.051 10. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.052 11. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174 12. Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.047 13. Tex. Water Code § 5.114 14. Tex. Water Code § 5.351 15. Tex. Water Code § 13.244 16. Tex. Water Code § 26.003 17. Tex. Water Code § 26.028 18. Tex. Water Code § 26.0282 19. Tex. Water Code § 26.081 20. Tex. Water Code §§ 65.001-65.029

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT PAGE 47 APPENDIX 1

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX 12/02/2024 11:50:08 AM Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County D-1-GN-23-001004

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-23-001004

CITY OF GEORGETOWN, TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS TEXAS COMMISSION ON § ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, § § Defendant. § 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FINAL JUDGMENT REVERSING ORDER OF TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

This case is an appeal of a final agency order relating to the issuance by the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") to Intervenor AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ("AIRW") of

a new Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (the "Permit") to discharge up to

200,000 gallons per day of treated domestic wastewater from a proposed wastewater treatment

facility within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the plaintiff, City of Georgetown ("City" or

"Plaintiff'). On October 31, 2024, this Court held a hearing on the merits of this cause. Having

considered the Texas Administrative Procedure Act, pleadings, administrative record, briefing,

and argument of counsel, the Court finds that the TCEQ's order under review in this case should

be and is hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED to Defendant for further proceedings for the

following reasons:

1. Defendant erred by determining that the Permit complies with Texas's regionalization policy.

ause Intervenor AIRW failed to seek a waiver from Plaintiffs city council, · s no way to know whether the city council would be willing to waive the tion requirement. It is unreasonable to assume that City staff-who are by the city council-speak for the city council, which is not bound and has he power to waive requirements and the ability to act under political

730 considerations. This means that Defendant should not have determined both that (1) Plaintiff denied Intervenor AIRW service; and (2) connection to Plaintiffs system would cost Intervenor AIRW $20 million.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that TCEQ's order is REVERSED

AND REMANDED TO THE TCEQ FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT

WITH THIS ORDER.

This Judgment is final, disposes of all parties and claims, and is appealable.

November, 2624.

Date: December 2, 2024

JUDGE PRESIDING LAURIE EISERLOH 455th District Court

731 AGREED AS TO FORM:

William A. Faulk II SPENCER FANE, LLP cfaulk@spencerfane.com Counsel for Plaintiff, City of Georgetown

s S e Erin K. Sno OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL sara.ferris@oag.texas.zov erin.snody@oag.texas.gov Counsel for Defendant Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Andrew B Davis LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP andrew@lkcfirm.com Helen Gilbert BARTON BENSON JONESPLLC hgilbert@bartonbensonjones.com Edmond McCarthy MCCARTHY & MCCARTHY, LLP ed@ermlawfirm.com Counsel for Intervenors AIRW 2017-7, L.P., 600 Westinghouse Investments, LLC, and 800 Westinghouse Investments, LLC

John . to THEC LTON LAWFIRM, PLLC john@carltonlawaustin.com Counsel for Intervenor Jonah Water Spccial Utility District

01/10/2025 10:46:36

732 APPENDIX 2

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX Jon Niermann, Chairman Emily Lindley, Commissioner Bobby Janecka, Commissioner Toby Baker, Executive Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution November 30, 2022

TO: Persons on the attached mailing list.

RE: AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TCEQ Docket No. 2021-1214-MWD; SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

Decision of the Commission on Application.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ” or “Commission”) has made a decision to grant the above-referenced application. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Commission’s order. Unless a Motion for Rehearing (“MFR” or “motion”) is timely filed with the chief clerk, this action of the Commission will become final. A MFR is a request for the Commission to review its decision on the matter. Any motion must explain why the Commission should review the decision.

Deadline for Filing Motion for Rehearing.

A MFR must be received by the chief clerk’s office no later than the 25th day after the date that the Commission’s order on this application is signed. The date of signature is indicated on the last page of the enclosed order.

Motions may be filed in accordance with the requirements in Senate Bill 1267 (84th Regular Session, effective September 1, 2015) and Texas Government Code § 2001. 146 with the chief clerk electronically at www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/efilings or by filing an original and 7 copies with the Chief Clerk at the following address:

Laurie Gharis, Chief Clerk TCEQ, MC-105 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Fax: 512/239-3311

In addition, a copy of the motion must be sent on the same day to each of the individuals on the attached mailing list as indicated by an asterisk (*). A certificate of service stating that copies of the motion were sent to those on the mailing list must also be sent to the chief clerk. The procedures for filing and serving a MFR and responses are located in 30 TAC § 80.272, Texas Governmental Code § 2001.146 as revised by Senate Bill 1267 (84th Regular Session, effective September 1, 2015), and 30 TAC §§ 1.10 and 1.11. The hardcopy filing requirement is waived by the General Counsel pursuant to 30 TAC § 1.10(h).

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov How is our customer service? tceq.texas.gov/customersurvey printed on recycled paper The written motion must contain (1) the name and representative capacity of the person filing the motion; (2) the style and official docket number assigned by SOAH and official docket number assigned by the Commission; (3) the date of the order; (4) the particular findings of fact or conclusions of law that are the subject of the complaint and any evidentiary or legal ruling claimed to be erroneous; and (5) the legal and factual basis for the claimed error.

Unless the time for the Commission to act on the MFR is extended, the MFR is overruled by operation of law at 5:00 p.m. on the 55th day after the date that the Commission’s order on this matter is signed.

If you have any questions or need additional information about the procedures described in this letter, please call the Public Education Program, toll free, at 1-800- 687-4040.

Sincerely,

~~ Laurie Gharis Chief Clerk

LG/mt

Enclosure AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TCEQ Docket No. 2021-1214-MWD; SOAH Docket No. XXX-XX-XXXX TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

FOR THE APPLICANT: J. Alfonso Martinez, Technical Staff Texas Commission on Environmental *Helen Gilbert, Attorney Quality Barton Benson Jones PLLC Water Quality Division MC-150 7000 North Mopac Expressway P.O. Box 13087 Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Austin, Texas 78731 FOR PUBLIC INTEREST COUNSEL Matthew Hiles, Vice President via electronic mail: AIRW 2017-7, L.P. 2505 North State Highway 360 *Sheldon Wayne, Attorney Suite 800 Texas Commission on Environmental Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 Quality Public Interest Counsel MC-103 Janet Sims, Project Manager P.O. Box 13087 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. Austin, Texas 78711-3087 13740 North Highway 183 Suite L6 FOR THE CHIEF CLERK Austin, Texas 78750 via electronic mail:

INTERESTED PERSONS: Laurie Gharis, Chief Clerk Texas Commission on Environmental See attached list. Quality Office of Chief Clerk MC-105 FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR P.O. Box 13087 via electronic mail: Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Ryan Vise, Deputy Director FOR THE STATE OFFICE OF Texas Commission on Environmental ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Quality via e-Filing: External Relations Division Public Education Program MC-108 The Honorable Andrew Lutostanski P.O. Box 13087 The Honorable Katerina DeAngelo Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Administrative Law Judge State Office of Administrative Hearings *Bobby Salehi, Staff Attorney P. O. Box 13025 Texas Commission on Environmental Austin, Texas 78711-3025 Quality Environmental Law Division MC-173 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 *CARLS , PATRICIA ERLINGER *CARLTON , MR JOHN J *FAULK III , WILLIAM A LAW OFFICES OF PATRICIA ERLINGER CARLS THE CARLTON LAW FIRM PLLC SPENCER FANE LLP 3100 GLENVIEW AVE STE B130 STE 1200 AUSTIN TX 78703-1443 4301 WESTBANK DR 816 CONGRESS AVE AUSTIN TX 78746-6568 AUSTIN TX 78701-2442

*HOPINKS-BAUL , CARLOTA MARTIN , NATASHA J PATTERSON , BARBARA KAY SPENCER FANE LLP GRAVES DOUGHERTY HEARON & MOODY PC 100 CAMBRIDGE CIR STE 1200 STE 2700 WACO TX 76712-7561 816 CONGRESS AVE 401 CONGRESS AVE AUSTIN TX 78701-2442 AUSTIN TX 78701-4071

PATTERSON , GLENN WEBB , JIM C 3651 COUNTY ROAD 110 2929 BELL GIN RD GEORGETOWN TX 78626-7440 GEORGETOWN TX 78626-2189 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

AN ORDER GRANTING THE APPLICATION BY AIR-W 2017-7 L.P. FOR TPDES PERMIT NO. WQ0015878001 IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; SOAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX; TCEQ DOCKET NO. 2021-1214-MWD

On November 16, 2022, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or Commission) considered the application of AIR-W 2017-7 L.P. (AIRW) for a new Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. WQ0015878001 in Williamson County, Texas. A Proposal for Decision (PFD) was presented by Andrew Lutostanski and Katerina DeAngelo, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), who conducted an evidentiary hearing conce1nmg the application on May 23-25, 2022, in Austin, Texas via Zoom videoconferencing. After considering the PFD, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

Application

1. AIRW filed its application (Application) for a new TPDES permit with TCEQ on April 6, 2020.

2. The Application requested authorization to discharge treated domestic wastewater from a proposed plant site, the Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility (Facility), to be located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Rockride Lane (County Road 110) and Westinghouse Road (County Road 111), in Williamson County, Texas 78626. AIRW proposes to build the Facility to serve the Mansions of Georgetown III development, an 880-house subdivision. 1 3. The treated effluent will be discharged via pipe, thence through a culve1i, thence to an unnamed tributary, thence to Mankins Branch, thence to the San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River in Segment No. 1248 of the Brazos River Basin. The unclassified receiving water uses are limited aquatic life use for the unnamed tributary and Mankins Branch (intermittent with perennial pools), and high aquatic life use for Mankins Branch (perennial). The designated uses for Segment No. 1248 are primary contact recreation, public water supply, aquifer protection, and high aquatic life use.

4. The Executive Director (ED) declared the Application administratively complete on June 19, 2020, and technically complete on October 26, 2020.

5. The ED completed the technical review of the Application, prepared a draft permit (Draft Permit) and made it available for public review and comment.

6. AIRW currently owns the site at which the proposed Facility will be located.

7. AIRW, through its affiliate, entered into Non-Standard Service Agreements (NSSAs) with Jonah Water Special Utility District (Jonah) on April 20, 2022, for the provision of retail wastewater services to the development. 8. Under the NSSAs, Jonah will own and operate the Facility once the TPDES permit is issued and transferred to it under 30 Texas Administrative Code section 305.64.

The Draft Permit

9. The Draft Permit would authorize a discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day (or 0.20 million gallons per day (MGD)).

10. The Facility will have treatment units including aeration basins, a final clarifier, a cloth effluent filter, chemical injection for phosphorus removal, aerated sludge holding and thickening tank, and a chlorine contact chamber. The Facility has not been constructed.

11. The unclassified receiving water uses are limited aquatic life use for the unnamed tributary and Mankins Branch (intermittent with perennial pools), and high aquatic life use for Mankins Branch (perennial). The designated uses for Segment No. 1248 are primary contact recreation, public water supply, aquifer protection, and high aquatic life use.

2 12. The effluent limitations in the Draft Pennit, based on a 30 day average, include: 7 milligram per liter (mg/L) Five-Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand; 10 mg/L Total Suspended Solids; 2 mg/L Ammonia Nitrogen; 0.5 mg/L Total Phosphorus; a minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) of 4.0 mg/L, pH in the range of 6.0 to 9.0, and Escherichia coli (E. coli) not to exceed 126 colony forming units/most probable number per 100 milliliter.

13. The effluent shall contain a chlorine residual of at least 1.0 mg/Land shall not exceed a chlorine residual of 4.0 mg/L after a detention of at least 20 minutes based on peak flow.

Notice and Jurisdiction

14. The Notice of Receipt of the Application and Intent to Obtain Water Quality Permit was published on June 28, 2020, in the Williamson County Sun in English and, on June 25, 2020, in El Mundo Newspaper in Spanish. 15. The Combined Notice of Receipt and Intent to Obtain a Water Quality Permit and Notice of Application and Preliminary Decision was published on December 13, 2020, in the Williamson County Sun in English and, on December 17, 2020, in El Mundo Newspaper in Spanish.

16. The comment period for the Application closed on January 19, 2021.

17. TCEQ's Office of the Chief Clerk received timely comments from various individuals and the City of Georgetown (the City). The City also timely filed a request for a Contested Case Hearing based upon issues raised during the public comment period.

18. The ED filed his Response to Public Comments on August 6, 2021.

19. On November 3, 2021, the Commission considered the hearing request at its open meeting and, on November 9, 2021, issued an Interim Order, directing that the following eight issues be referred to SOAH, denying all issues not referred, and setting the maximum duration of the hearing at 180 days from the date of the preliminary hearing until the date the PFD is issued by SOAH:

A) Issue A: Whether the Draft Permit is protective of water quality and the existing uses of the receiving waters in accordance with applicable Texas Surface Water Quality

3 Standards (TSQWS), including protection of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife;

B) Issue B: Whether the Draft Permit is consistent with the state's regionalization policy and demonstration of need for the volume requested in the application for a new discharge permit pursuant to Texas Water Code section 26.0282;

C) Issue C: Whether the Draft Permit is protective of the health of the nearby residents;

D) Issue D: Whether the Draft Permit complies with applicable requirements regarding nuisance odors; E) Issue E: Whether the Application is substantially complete and accurate;

F) Issue F: Whether the Draft Permit complies with the TCEQ's antidegradation policy and procedures;

G) Issue G: Whether the Draft Permit should be altered or denied based on the AIRW's compliance history; and

H) Issue H: Whether the Draft Permit contains sufficient provisions to ensure protection of water quality, including necessary operational requirements.

20. On January 16, 2022, notice of the preliminary hearing was published in English in the Williamson County Sun and, on January 13, 2022, in Spanish in El Mundo Newspaper. The notice included the time, date, and place of the hearing, as well as the matters asserted, in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules.

Proceedings at SOAH

21. On February 24, 2022, a preliminary hearing was convened in this case via videoconference by SOAH ALJs Andrew Lutostanski and Ross Henderson. Attorney Helen Gilbert appeared for AIRW; attorney Patricia Carls appeared for the City; attorney Bobby Salehi appeared for the ED; attorney Jennifer Jamison appeared for the Office of Public Interest Counsel (OPIC); Jim Webb appeared for himself; and John Carlton appeared for Jonah.

4 22. Mr. Webb and Jonah sought party status at the preliminary hearing, and the ALJs granted those requests. Mr. Webb submitted his withdrawal from the proceeding on May 17, 2022.

23. Jurisdiction was noted by the ALJs and the Administrative Record, and AIRW's exhibits AIRW Exhibit 1-7 were admitted. 24. A second preliminary hearing was held via videoconference by SOAH ALJs Lutostanski and Katerina DeAngelo on May 12, 2022. All parties appeared through their respective representatives and the ALJs ruled on all timely-filed motions and objections.

25. On May 23-25, 2022, ALJs Lutostanski and DeAngelo convened the hearing on the merits via videoconference and all paiiies appeared through their respective representatives. The record closed on June 24, 2022, after the parties filed post-hearing briefs.

Protection of Water Quality and Existing Uses, Including Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife

26. The prima facie demonstration that the Draft Permit is protective of water quality and the existing uses of the receiving waters in accordance with applicable Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS), including protection of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, was not rebutted.

27. TSWQS apply to surface water in the state and are set by the Commission at levels designed to be protective of public health, aquatic resources, terrestrial life, and other environmental and economic resources. The applicable water quality standards are the TSWQS in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 307.

28. The TSWQS consist of general standards, nartative standards, surface water segment-specific numeric standards, numeric standards for toxic substances, and antidegradation review.

29. The TSWQS establish specific uses for each classified water body in the state and also provide numeric criteria for each classified stream.

30. The provisions of the Draft Permit are protective of water quality and are in accordance with the TSWQS.

31. The Draft Permit is protective of water quality and existing uses of the receiving water.

5 32. The Draft Permit is protective of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Regionalization

33. To effectuate its policy of encouraging regionalization of wastewater services, TCEQ requires an applicant to provide certain information to allow TCEQ to conduct a regionalization analysis.

34. No part of the Facility or development is within the City's corporate limits.

35. The proposed Facility and its discharge are within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction.

36. Properties in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction that desire wastewater services from the City must first submit a petition for voluntary annexation.

37. The ordinance requiring annexation for wastewater services may be waived by the City Council.

38. As pai1 of its Application, AIRW provided email correspondence to and from nearby providers regarding whether they would provide sewer service.

39. AIRW's written communications with nearby providers were sufficient, and AIRW was not required to submit certified letters because the emails provide similar tracking and traceability.

40. AIRW explored securing wastewater services from the City, and the City placed conditions on providing service; including: the Facility site would have to be annexed into the City and comply with the City's land use restrictions.

41. There was no indication that the City was willing to waive the annexation and land use requirements.

42. AIRW received a coriditional offer for sewer service from the City. The City denied AIRW's request for service unless AIRW agreed to annexation and land use restrictions.

6 43. The ED requested from AIRW a cost analysis of expenditures that includes the cost of connecting to the CCN facilities versus the cost of the proposed facility or expans10n.

44. Constructing a new plant will cost approximately $300,000 more than connecting to the City's system.

45. Because of the higher property tax rate inside the City than outside it in the unincorporated area and the City's condition of annexation to connect to its system, connecting carries with it an approximately $20 million cost due to diminution in property value.

46. Costs weigh in favor of granting AIRW's application.

47. The evidence fails to show that easements and the delay inherent to acquiring them are impediments to connecting to the City's system.

48. Even if easements were needed, the evidence fails to show that AIRW tried and failed to secure them.

49. There is no regional provider designated for the area where the Facility is proposed to be located.

50. The proposed Facility and its discharge are not within the sewer CCN of any retail public utility.

51. The proposed Facility and its discharge are partially within Jonah's district boundaries and wholly within Jonah's water CCN area.

52. The City did not request Jonah's consent to provide wastewater service to the Facility, and Jonah has not given consent for the City to operate within its boundaries.

53. DELETED

7 54. DELETED

Nearby Residents

55. The prima facie demonstration that the Draft Permit is protective of the health of nearby residents was not rebutted.

56. The Draft Permit contains adequate permit limits and monitoring requirements to protect the health of nearby residents.

57. The monitoring and sampling requirements in the Draft Permit comply with the Commission rules.

58. The Draft Permit contains appropriate effluent limits.

59. The Draft Permit is protective of human health, including those of nearby residents.

Nuisance Odors

60. AIRW will control nuisance odors by owning the 150-foot buffer zone from the wastewater treatment plant units to the property line.

61. The evidence failed to show that the discharge will go into any body of water that crosses or abuts any park, playground, or schoolyard within one mile of the point of discharge.

Completeness and Accuracy of Application

62. The prima facie demonstration that the Application is substantially complete and accurate was not rebutted.

63. The Application went through both an administrative and a technical review.

64. The Application included all required information and was substantially complete and accurate.

8 Antidegradation

65. The prima facie demonstration that the Draft Permit complies with TCEQ's anti degradation policy and procedures was not rebutted.

66. The ED performed a Tier 1 and Tier 2 antidegradation review of the receiving waters in accordance with 30 Texas Administrative Code section 307.5.

67. The narrative and numeric criteria to protect existing uses will be maintained throughout the receiving waters; therefore, existing water quality uses will be maintained and protected.

68. The existing water quality uses of the rece1vmg waters of the unnamed tributary of unnamed tributary, Mankins Branch, the San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River in Segment No. 1248 of the Brazos River Basin will not be impaired by the Draft Permit as long as AIRW complies with the Draft Permit, which will satisfy the antidegradation Tier 1 requirements.

69. The Draft Permit will not cause significant degradation of water quality in the receiving waters of the unnamed tributary, Mankins Branch, the San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River in Segment No. 1248 of the Brazos River Basin as long as AIRW complies with the Draft Permit, which will satisfy the antidegradation Tier 2 requirements.

70. The Draft Permit complies with TCEQ's antidegradation policy and procedures.

Compliance History

71. AIRW's compliance status is unclassified.

72. No evidence was presented that indicated that AIRW's compliance hist01y should alter or result in permit denial.

73. AIRW's compliance history of unclassified does not serve as a basis for alteration or denial of the Draft Pennit.

9 Operational Requirements

74. The prima facie demonstration that the Draft Permit contains sufficient provisions to ensure protection of water quality, including necessary operational requirements, was not rebutted.

75. The operational requirements in the Draft Permit are sufficient to ensure protection of water quality.

Transcription Costs

76. Reporting and transcription of the hearing on the merits was warranted because the hearing lasted for three days.

77. All parties fully participated in the hearing by presenting witnesses and cross- examining witnesses; however, Jonah's participation in the hearing was minor and disproportionate to the City and AIRW.

78. Both the City and AIRW paiiicipated roughly equally in the hearing and cited to the transcript in their closing arguments; therefore, both sides benefitted from having a transcript.

79. There was no evidence that any party subject to allocation of costs 1s financially unable to pay a share of the costs.

80. The total cost for recording and transcribing the preliminary hearing and the hearing on the merits was $8,848.75.

81. AIRW and the City should each pay one-half of the transcription costs.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

l. TCEQ has jurisdiction over this matter. Tex. Water Code, chs. 5, 26.

2. SOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing and to prepare a PFD in contested cases referred by the Commission under Texas Government Code section 2003.047.

10 3. Notice was provided in accordance with Texas Water Code sections 5.114 and 26.028; Texas Government Code sections 2001.051 and 2001.052; and 30 Texas Administrative Code sections 39.405 and 39.551.

4. The Application is subject to the requirements in Senate Bill 709, effective September 1, 2015. Tex. Gov't Code§ 2003.047(i-l)-(i-3).

5. AIRW's filing of the Administrative Record established a prima facie case that: ( 1) the Draft Permit meets all state and federal legal and technical requirements; and (2) a permit, if issued consistent with the Draft Permit, would protect human health and safety, the environment, and physical property. Tex. Gov't Code§ 2003.047(i-l); 30 Tex. Admin. Code§ 80.17.

6. AIRW retains the burden of proof on the issues regarding the sufficiency of the Application and compliance with the necessary statutory and regulatory requirements. 30 Tex. Admin. Code§ 80. l 7(a).

7. The City did not rebut the prima facie demonstration by demonstrating that one or more provisions in the Draft Pennit violate a specifically applicable state or federal requirement that relates to a matter referred by TCEQ. Tex. Gov't Code§ 2003.047(i-2); 30 Tex. Admin. Code§ 80. l l 7(c).

8. The Draft Permit is protective of water quality and the existing uses of the receiving waters in accordance with applicable TSWQS, including protection of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.

9. The Draft Permit is protective of the health of residents near the proposed Facility and discharge route.

10. The Application demonstrates compliance with TCEQ's regionalization policy. Tex. Water Code§§ 26.003, 26.081(a)-(b), (d); 26.0282.

11. The Application demonstrates a need for the Draft Permit. Tex. Water Code § 26.0282.

12. The Draft Permit contains sufficient provisions to prevent nuisance odors. 30 Tex. Admin. Code§§ 217.38, 309.13(e).

13. The Application is substantially complete and accurate.

11 14. The Draft Permit complies with TCEQ's antidegradation policy. 30 Texas Admin. Code§§ 307.5, 307.6(b)(4).

15. AIRW's compliance history does not raise issues regarding AIRW's ability to comply with the material terms of the Draft Permit or that would warrant altering the terms of the Draft Permit.

16. The Draft Permit contains sufficient prov1s10ns, including necessary operational requirements, to ensure protection of water quality.

17. No transcript costs may be assessed against the ED or OPIC because TCEQ's rules prohibit the assessment of any cost to a statutory party who is precluded by law from appealing any ruling, decision, or other act of the Commission. 30 Tex. Admin. Code§ 80.23(d)(2).

18. Factors to be considered in assessing transcript costs include: the party who requested the transcript; the financial ability of the party to pay the costs; the extent to which the party participated in the hearing; the relative benefits to the various parties of having a transcript; the budgetary constraints of a state or federal administrative agency participating in the proceeding; and any other factor which is relevant to a just and reasonable assessment of the costs. 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 80.23( d)(l ).

19. Considering the factors in 30 Texas Administrative Code section 80.23(d)(l ), a reasonable assessment of hearing transcript costs against parties to the contested case proceeding is: one-half to AIRW and one-half to the City.

III. EXPLAINATION OF CHANGES

1. The Commission determined to adopt the Administrative Law Judges' proposed Order with changes.

2. The Commission determined to amend the second sentence in Finding of Fact #3 based on the Executive Director's Exceptions and agreed to by the Administrative Law Judges to read: "The unclassified receiving water uses are limited aquatic life use for the unnamed tributary and Mankins Branch (intermittent with perennial pools), and high aquatic life use for Mankins Branch (perennial)."

12 3. The Commission determined to amend Finding of Fact #51 based on Jonah's Exceptions and agreed to by the Administrative Law Judges to read: "The proposed Facility and its discharge are partially within Jonah's district boundaries and wholly within Jonah's water CCN area."

4. The Commission determined to delete Findings of Fact #53 and #54 as unnecessary to the Commission's regionalization policy consideration in this case.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THAT:

1. AIRW's Application for Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. WQ0015878001 is granted as set forth in the Draft Permit.

2. AIRW and the City must each pay one-half of the transcription costs.

3. The Commission adopts the ED's Response to Public Comment m accordance with 30 Texas Administrative Code section 50.117. 4. All other motions, requests for entry of specific Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, and any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted herein, are hereby denied.

5. The effective date of this Order is the date the Order is final, as provided by Texas Government Code section 2001.144 and 30 Texas Administrative Code section 80.273.

6. TCEQ's Chief Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to all paiiies.

7. If any provision, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Order is for any reason held to be invalid, the invalidity of any provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Order.

ISSUED: "1ove....~ be-.. 2.s, ~ z.."'L TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Niermann, Chairman

13 TPDES PERMIT NO. WQ0015878001 [For TCEQ office use only -EPA I.D. No . TX0140244]

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087

PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTES under provisions of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code

AIRW 2017-7, L.P.

whose mailing address is

2505 North State Highway 360, Suite 800 Grand Prairie, Texas 75050

is authorized to treat and discharge wastes from the Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility, SIC Code 4952

located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Rockride Lane (County Road 110) and Westinghouse Road (County Road 111), in Williamson County, Texas 78626

via pipe, thence through a culvert, thence to an unnamed tributary, thence to Mankins Branch, thence the San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River in Segment No. 1248 of the Brazos River Basin

only according to effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this permit, as well as the rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the laws of the State of Texas, and other orders of the TCEQ. The issuance of this permit does not grant to the permittee the right to use private or public property for conveyance of wastewater along the discharge route described in this permit. This includes, but is not limited to, property belonging to any individual, partnership, corporation, or other entity. Neither does this permit authorize any invasion of personal rights nor any violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. It is the responsibility of the permittee to acquire property rights as may be necessary to use the discharge route.

This permit shall expire at midnight, five years from the date of issuance.

For the Commission AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND_MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Outfall Number 001

1. During the period beginning upon the date of issuance and lasting through the date of expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge subject to the following effluent limitations:

The daily average flow of effluent shall not exceed 0.20 million gallons per day (MGD), nor shall the average discharge during any two- hour period (2-hour peak) exceed 556 gallons per minute.

Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Min. Self-Monitoring Reguirements Daily Avg 7-day Avg Daily Max Single Grab Report Daily Avg. & Max. Single Grab Measurement mg/1 (lbs/day) mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 Sample Type Frequency Flow, MGD Report N/A Report N/A Continuous Totalizing Meter Carbonaceous Biochemical 7 (12) 12 22 32 One/week Grab Oxygen Demand (5-day) Total Suspended Solids 10 (17) 15 25 35 One/week Grab Ammonia Nitrogen 2 (3.3) 5 10 15 One/week Grab Total Phosphorus 0.5 (o.8) 1 2 3 One/week Grab E. coli, CFU or MPN* per 100 ml 126 N/A N/A 399 One/month Grab *CFU or MPN•x- - colony-forming units or most probable number 2. The effluent shall contain a chlorine residual of at least 1.0 mg/1 and shall not exceed a chlorine residual of 4.0 mg/1 after a detention time of at least 20 minutes (based on peak flow), and shall be monitored five times per week by grab sample. An equivalent method of disinfection may be substituted only with prior approval of the Executive Director. 3. The pH shall not be less than 6.o standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored once per month by grab sample. 4. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts and no discharge of visible oil. 5. Effluent monitoring samples shall be taken at the following location(s): Following the final treatment unit. 6. The effluent shall contain a minimum dissolved oxygen of 4.0 mg/1 and shall be monitored once per week by grab sample.

Page2 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

DEFINITIONS AND STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS

As required by Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 305, certain regulations appear as standard conditions in waste discharge permits. 30 TAC § 305.121 - 305.129 (relating to Permit Characteristics and Conditions) as promulgated under the Texas Water Code (TWC) §§ 5.103 and 5.105, and the Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC) §§ 361.017 and 361.024(a), establish the characteristics and standards for waste discharge permits, including sewage sludge, and those sections of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122 adopted by reference by the Commission. The following text includes these conditions and incorporates them into this permit. All definitions in TWC § 26.001 and 30 TAC Chapter 305 shall apply to this permit and are incorporated by reference. Some specific definitions of words or phrases used in this permit are as follows:

1. Flow Measurements

a. Annual average flow - the arithmetic average of all daily flow determinations taken within the preceding 12 consecutive calendar months. The annual average flow determination shall consist of daily flow volume determinations made by a totalizing meter, charted on a chart recorder and limited to major domestic wastewater discharge facilities with one million gallons per day or greater permitted flow.

b. Daily average flow - the arithmetic average of all determinations of the daily flow within a period of one calendar month. The daily average flow determination shall consist of determinations made on at least four separate days. If instantaneous measurements are used to determine the daily flow, the determination shall be the arithmetic average of all instantaneous measurements taken during that month. Daily average flow determination for intermittent discharges shall consist of a minimum of three flow determinations on days of discharge.

c. Daily maximum flow - the highest total flow for any 24-hour period in a calendar month.

d. Instantaneous flow - the measured flow during the minimum time required to interpret the flow measuring device.

e. 2-hour peak flow (domestic wastewater treatment plants) - the maximum flow sustained for a two-hour period during the period of daily discharge. The average of multiple measurements of instantaneous maximum flow within a two-hour period may be used to calculate the 2-hour peak flow.

f. Maximum 2-hour peak flow (domestic wastewater treatment plants) - the highest 2-hour peak flow for any 24-hour period in a calendar month.

2. Concentration Measurements

a. Daily average concentration - the arithmetic average of all effluent samples, composite or grab as required by this permit, within a period of one calendar month, consisting of at least four separate representative measurements.

1. For domestic wastewater treatment plants - When four samples are not available in a calendar month, the arithmetic average (weighted by flow) of all values in the previous four consecutive month period consisting of at least four measurements shall be utilized as the daily average concentration.

Page3 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

ii. For all other wastewater treatment plants - When four samples are not available in a calendar month, the arithmetic average (weighted by flow) of all values taken during the month shall be utilized as the daily average concentration.

b. 7-day average concentration - the arithmetic average of all effluent samples, composite or grab as required by this permit, within a period of one calendar week, Sunday through Saturday. c. Daily maximum concentration - the maximum concentration measured on a single day, by the sample type specified in the permit, within a period of one calendar month.

d. 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 with limitations expressed in terms of mass, the daily discharge is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the sampling day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the sampling day.

The daily discharge determination of concentration made using a composite sample shall be the concentration of the composite sample. When grab samples are used, the daily discharge determination of concentration shall be the arithmetic average (weighted by flow value) of all samples collected during that day.

e. Bacteria concentration (E.coli or Enterococci) - Colony Forming Units (CFU) or Most Probable Number (MPN) of bacteria per 100 milliliters effluent. The daily average bacteria concentration is a geometric mean of the values for the effluent samples collected in a calendar month. The geometric mean shall be determined by calculating the nth root of the product of all measurements made in a calendar month, where n equals the number of measurements made; or, computed as the antilogarithm of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of all measurements made in a calendar month. For any measurement of bacteria equaling zero, a substituted value of one shall be made for input into either computation method. If specified, the 7-day average for bacteria is the geometric mean of the values for all effluent samples collected during a calendar week.

f. Daily average loading (lbs/day) - the arithmetic average of all daily discharge loading calculations during a period of one calendar month. These calculations must be made for each day of the month that a parameter is analyzed. The daily discharge, in terms of mass (lbs/day), is calculated as (Flow, MGD x Concentration, mg/1 x 8.34).

g. Daily maximum loading (lbs/day) - the highest daily discharge, in terms of mass (lbs/day), within a period of one calendar month.

3. Sample Type

a. Composite sample - For domestic wastewater, a composite sample is a sample made up of a minimum of three effluent portions collected in a continuous 24-hour period or during the period of daily discharge if less than 24 hours, and combined in volumes proportional to flow, and collected at the intervals required by 30 TAC§ 319.9 (a). For industrial wastewater, a composite sample is a sample made up of a minimum of three effluent portions collected in a continuous 24-hour period or during the period of daily discharge if less than 24 hours, and combined in volumes proportional to flow, and collected at the intervals required by 30 TAC§ 319.9 (b).

Page4 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

b. Grab sample - an individual sample collected in less than 15 minutes.

4. Treatment Facility (facility) - wastewater facilities used in the conveyance, storage, treatment, recycling, reclamation and/ or disposal of domestic sewage, industrial wastes, agricultural wastes, recreational wastes, or other wastes including sludge handling or disposal facilities under the jurisdiction of the Commission.

5. The term "sewage sludge" is defined as solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in 30 TAC Chapter 312. This includes the solids that have not been classified as hazardous waste separated from wastewater by unit processes.

6. Bypass - the intentional diversion of a waste stream from any portion of a treatment facility.

MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Self-Reporting

Monitoring results shall be provided at the intervals specified in the permit. Unless otherwise specified in this permit or otherwise ordered by the Commission, the permittee shall conduct effluent sampling and reporting in accordance with 30 TAC§§ 319-4 - 319.12. Unless otherwise specified, effluent monitoring data shall be submitted each month, to the Compliance Monitoring Team of the Enforcement Division (MC 224), by the 20th day of the following month for each discharge which is described by this permit whether or not a discharge is made for that month. Monitoring results must be submitted online using the NetDMR reporting system available through the TCEQ website unless the permittee requests and obtains an electronic reporting waiver. Monitoring results must be signed and certified as required by Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 10.

As provided by state law, the permittee is subject to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, as applicable, for negligently or knowingly violating the Clean Water Act (CWA); TWC §§ 26, 27, and 28; and THSC § 361, including but not limited to knowingly making any false statement, representation, or certification on any report, record, or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance, or falsifying, tampering with or knowingly rendering inaccurate any monitoring device or method required by this permit or violating any other requirement imposed by state or federal regulations.

2. Test Procedures

a. Unless otherwise specified in this permit, test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall comply with procedures specified in 30 TAC§§ 319.11 - 319.12. Measurements, tests, and calculations shall be accurately accomplished in a representative manner.

b. All laboratory tests submitted to demonstrate compliance with this permit must meet the requirements of 30 TAC § 25, Environmental Testing Laboratory Accreditation and Certification.

3. Records of Results

a. Monitoring samples and measurements shall be taken at times and in a manner so as to be representative of the monitored activity.

b. 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

Page 5 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

of at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR Part 503), monitoring and reporting records, including strip charts and records of calibration and maintenance, copies of all records required by this permit, records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, and the certification required by 40 CFR § 264.73(b)(9) shall be retained at the facility site, or shall be readily available for review by a TCEQ representative for a period of three years from the date of the record or sample, measurement, report, application or certification. This period shall be extended at the request of the Executive Director. c. Records of monitoring activities shall include the following: i. date, time and place of sample or measurement; ii. identity of individual who collected the sample or made the measurement. iii. date and time of analysis; iv. identity of the individual and laboratory who performed the analysis; v. the technique or method of analysis; and VI. the results of the analysis or measurement and quality assurance/quality control records. The period during which records are required to be kept shall be automatically extended to the date of the final disposition of any administrative or judicial enforcement action that may be instituted against the permittee. 4. Additional Monitoring by Permittee If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein more frequently than required by this permit using approved analytical methods as specified above, all results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values submitted on the approved self-report form. Increased frequency of sampling shall be indicated on the self-report form. 5. Calibration of Instruments All automatic flow measuring or recording devices and all totalizing meters for measuring flows shall be accurately calibrated by a trained person at plant start-up and as often thereafter as necessary to ensure accuracy, but not less often than annually unless authorized by the Executive Director for a longer period. Such person shall verify in writing that the device is operating properly and giving accurate results. Copies of the verification shall be retained at the facility site and/or shall be readily available for review by a TCEQ representative for a period of three years. 6. Compliance Schedule Reports Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule of the permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule date to the Regional Office and the Compliance Monitoring Team of the Enforcement Division (MC 224).

Page 6 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

7. Noncompliance Notification

a. In accordance with 30 TAC§ 305.125(9) any noncompliance which may endanger human health or safety, or the environment shall be reported by the permittee to the TCEQ. Except as allowed by 30 TAC § 305.132, report of such information shall be provided orally or by facsimile transmission (FAX) to the Regional Office within 24 hours of becoming aware of the noncompliance. A written submission of such information shall also be provided by the permittee to the Regional Office and the Compliance Monitoring Team of the Enforcement Division (MC 224) within five working days of becoming aware of the noncompliance. For Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), effective December 21, 2023, the permittee must submit the written report for unauthorized discharges and unanticipated bypasses that exceed any effluent limit in the permit using the online electronic reporting system available through the TCEQ website unless the permittee requests and obtains an electronic reporting waiver. The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the potential danger to human health or safety, or the environment; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance, and to mitigate its adverse effects.

b. The following violations shall be reported under Monitoring and Reporting Requirement 7.a.:

1. Unauthorized discharges as defined in Permit Condition 2(g). 11. Any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit. iii. Violation of a permitted maximum daily discharge limitation for pollutants listed specifically in the Other Requirements section of an Industrial TPDES permit.

c. In addition to the above, any effluent violation which deviates from the permitted effluent limitation by more than 40% shall be reported by the permittee in writing to the Regional Office and the Compliance Monitoring Team of the Enforcement Division (MC 224) within 5 working days of becoming aware of the noncompliance. d. Any noncompliance other than that specified in this section, or any required information not submitted or submitted incorrectly, shall be reported to the Compliance Monitoring Team of the Enforcement Division (MC 224) as promptly as possible. For effluent limitation violations, noncompliances shall be reported on the approved self-report form.

8. In accordance with the procedures described in 30 TAC§§ 35.301 - 35.303 (relating to Water Quality Emergency and Temporary Orders) if the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice by applying for such authorization.

9. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances All existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural permittees shall notify the Regional Office, orally or by facsimile transmission within 24 hours, and both the Regional Office and the Compliance Monitoring Team of the Enforcement Division (MC 224) in writing within five (5) working days, after becoming aware of or having reason to believe:

Page 7 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

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 listed at 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix D, Tables II and III (excluding Total Phenols) which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification levels":

i. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 µg/L);

11. 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;

iii. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application; or

1v. The level established by the TCEQ.

b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a nonroutine 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);

ii. One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;

iii. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application; or

iv. The level established by the TCEQ.

10. Signatories to Reports

All reports and other information requested by the Executive Director shall be signed by the person and in the manner required by 30 TAC§ 305.128 (relating to Signatories to Reports).

11. All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Executive Director of the following:

a. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to CWA § 301 or § 306 if it were directly discharging those pollutants;

b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit; and

c. For the purpose of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on:

1. The quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW; and

11. Any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.

Page 8 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

PERMIT CONDITIONS

1. General

a. When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in an application or in any report to the Executive Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.

b. This permit is granted on the basis of the information supplied and representations made by the permittee during action on an application, and relying upon the accuracy and completeness of that information and those representations. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked, in whole or in part, in accordance with 30 TAC Chapter 305, Subchapter D, during its term for good cause including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;

11. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; or

iii. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge.

c. The permittee shall furnish to the Executive Director, upon request and within a reasonable time, any information to determine whether cause exists for amending, revoking, suspending or terminating the permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Executive Director, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by the permit.

2. Compliance

a. Acceptance of the permit by the person to whom it is issued constitutes acknowledgment and agreement that such person will comply with all the terms and conditions embodied in the permit, and the rules and other orders of the Commission.

b. The permittee has a duty to comply with all conditions of the permit. Failure to comply with any permit condition constitutes a violation of the permit and the Texas Water Code or the Texas Health and Safety Code, and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit amendment, revocation, or suspension, or for denial of a permit renewal application or an application for a permit for another facility.

c. 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 conditions of the permit.

d. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal or other permit violation that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

e. Authorization from the Commission is required before beginning any change in the permitted facility or activity that may result in noncompliance with any permit requirements.

f. A permit may be amended, suspended and reissued, or revoked for cause in accordance

Page 9 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

with 30 TAC§§ 305.62 and 305.66 and TWC§ 7.302. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit amendment, suspension and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.

g. There shall be no unauthorized discharge of wastewater or any other waste. For the purpose of this permit, an unauthorized discharge is considered to be any discharge of wastewater into or adjacent to water in the state at any location not permitted as an outfall or otherwise defined in the Other Requirements section of this permit.

h. In accordance with 30 TAC§ 305.535(a), the permittee may allow any bypass to occur from a TPDES permitted facility which does not cause permitted effluent limitations to be exceeded or an unauthorized discharge to occur, but only if the bypass is also for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.

1. The permittee is subject to administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, as applicable, under TWC §§ 7.051 - 7.075 (relating to Administrative Penalties), 7.101 - 7.111 (relating to Civil Penalties), and 7.141 - 7.202 (relating to Criminal Offenses and Penalties) for violations including, but not limited to, negligently or knowingly violating the federal CWA §§ 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405, or any condition or limitation implementing any sections in a permit issued under the CWA § 402, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under the CWA §§ 402 (a)(3) or 402 (b)(8).

3. Inspections and Entry

a. Inspection and entry shall be allowed as prescribed in the TWC Chapters 26, 27, and 28, and THSC § 361.

b. The members of the Commission and employees and agents of the Commission are entitled to enter any public or private property at any reasonable time for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the quality of water in the state or the compliance with any rule, regulation, permit or other order of the Commission. Members, employees, or agents of the Commission and Commission contractors are entitled to enter public or private property at any reasonable time to investigate or monitor or, if the responsible party is not responsive or there is an immediate danger to public health or the environment, to remove or remediate a condition related to the quality of water in the state. Members, employees, Commission contractors, or agents acting under this authority who enter private property shall observe the establishment's rules and regulations concerning safety, internal security, and fire protection, and if the property has management in residence, shall notify management or the person then in charge of his presence and shall exhibit proper credentials. If any member, employee, Commission contractor, or agent is refused the right to enter in or on public or private property under this authority, the Executive Director may invoke the remedies authorized in TWC § 7.002. The statement above, that Commission entry shall occur in accordance with an establishment's rules and regulations concerning safety, internal security, and fire protection, is not grounds for denial or restriction of entry to any part of the facility, but merely describes the Commission's duty to observe appropriate rules and regulations during an inspection.

4. Permit Amendment and/ or Renewal

Page 10 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

a. The permittee shall give notice to the Executive Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility if such alterations or additions would require a permit amendment or result in a violation of permit requirements. Notice shall also be required under this paragraph when:

i. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source in accordance with 30 TAC§ 305.534 (relating to New Sources and New Dischargers); or

11. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants that are subject neither to effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements in Monitoring and Reporting Requirements No. 9; or

iii. 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.

b. Prior to any facility modifications, additions, or expansions that will increase the plant capacity beyond the permitted flow, the permittee must apply for and obtain proper authorization from the Commission before commencing construction.

c. The permittee must apply for an amendment or renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration of the existing permit in order to continue a permitted activity after the expiration date of the permit. If an application is submitted prior to the expiration date of the permit, the existing permit shall remain in effect until the application is approved, denied, or returned. If the application is returned or denied, authorization to continue such activity shall terminate upon the effective date of the action. If an application is not submitted prior to the expiration date of the permit, the permit shall expire and authorization to continue such activity shall terminate.

d. Prior to accepting or generating wastes which are not described in the permit application or which would result in a significant change in the quantity or quality of the existing discharge, the permittee must report the proposed changes to the Commission. The permittee must apply for a permit amendment reflecting any necessary changes in permit conditions, including effluent limitations for pollutants not identified and limited by this permit.

e. In accordance with the TWC § 26.029(b), after a public hearing, notice of which shall be given to the permittee, the Commission may require the permittee, from time to time, for good cause, in accordance with applicable laws, to conform to new or additional conditions.

f. If any toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is promulgated under CWA § 307(a) for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and that standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation on the pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be modified or revoked and reissued to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under CWA § 307(a) for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the

Page 11 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

regulations that established those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.

5. Permit Transfer

a. Prior to any transfer of this permit, Commission approval must be obtained. The Commission shall be notified in writing of any change in control or ownership of facilities authorized by this permit. Such notification should be sent to the Applications Review and Processing Team (MC 148) of the Water Quality Division.

b. A permit may be transferred only according to the provisions of 30 TAC§ 305.64 (relating to Transfer of Permits) and 30 TAC§ 50.133 (relating to Executive Director Action on Application or WQMP update). 6. Relationship to Hazardous Waste Activities This permit does not authorize any activity of hazardous waste storage, processing, or disposal that requires a permit or other authorization pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code.

7. Relationship to Water Rights Disposal of treated effluent by any means other than discharge directly to water in the state must be specifically authorized in this permit and may require a permit pursuant to TWC Chapter 11. 8. Property Rights A permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege.

9. Permit Enforceability The conditions of this permit are severable, and 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. 10. Relationship to Permit Application

The application pursuant to which the permit has been issued is incorporated herein; provided, however, that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this permit and the application, the provisions of the permit shall control. 11. Notice of Bankruptcy

a. Each permittee shall notify the Executive Director, in writing, immediately following the filing of a voluntary or involuntary petition for bankruptcy under any chapter of Title 11 (Bankruptcy) of the United States Code (11 USC) by or against:

1. the permittee; 11. an entity (as that term is defined in 11 USC, § 101(14)) controlling the permittee or listing the permit or permittee as property of the estate; or m. an affiliate (as that term is defined in 11 USC,§ 101(2)) of the permittee.

Page 12 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

b. This notification must indicate: 1. the name of the permittee;

11. the permit number(s); m. the bankruptcy court in which the petition for bankruptcy was filed; and iv. the date of filing of the petition.

OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

1. The permittee shall at all times ensure that the facility and all of its systems of collection, treatment, and disposal are properly operated and maintained. This includes, but is not limited to, the regular, periodic examination of wastewater solids within the treatment plant by the operator in order to maintain an appropriate quantity and quality of solids inventory as described in the various operator training manuals and according to accepted industry standards for process control. Process control, maintenance, and operations records shall be retained at the facility site, or shall be readily available for review by a TCEQ representative, for a period of three years.

2. Upon request by the Executive Director, the permittee shall take appropriate samples and provide proper analysis in order to demonstrate compliance with Commission rules. Unless otherwise specified in this permit or otherwise ordered by the Commission, the permittee shall comply with all applicable provisions of 30 TAC Chapter 312 concerning sewage sludge use and disposal and 30 TAC§§ 319.21 - 319.29 concerning the discharge of certain hazardous metals.

3. Domestic wastewater treatment facilities shall comply with the following provisions:

a. The permittee shall notify the Municipal Permits Team, Wastewater Permitting Section (MC 148) of the Water Quality Division, in writing, of any facility expansion at least 90 days prior to conducting such activity.

b. The permittee shall submit a closure plan for review and approval to the Municipal Permits Team, Wastewater Permitting Section (MC 148) of the Water Quality Division, for any closure activity at least 90 days prior to conducting such activity. Closure is the act of permanently taking a waste management unit or treatment facility out of service and includes the permanent removal from service of any pit, tank, pond, lagoon, surface impoundment and/or other treatment unit regulated by this permit.

4. The permittee is responsible for installing prior to plant start-up, and subsequently maintaining, adequate safeguards to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during electrical power failures by means of alternate power sources, standby generators, and/ or retention of inadequately treated wastewater.

5. Unless otherwise specified, the permittee shall provide a readily accessible sampling point and, where applicable, an effluent flow measuring device or other acceptable means by which effluent flow may be determined.

Page 13 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

6. The permittee shall remit an annual water quality fee to the Commission as required by 30 TAC Chapter 21. Failure to pay the fee may result in revocation of this permit under TWC § 7.302(b)(6).

7. Documentation

For all written notifications to the Commission required of the permittee by this permit, the permittee shall keep and make available a copy of each such notification under the same conditions as self-monitoring data are required to be kept and made available. Except for information required for TPDES permit applications, effluent data, including effluent data in permits, draft permits and permit applications, and other information specified as not confidential in 30 TAC§§ 1.5(d), any information submitted pursuant to this permit may be claimed as confidential by the submitter. Any such claim must be asserted in the manner prescribed in the application form or by stamping the words confidential business information on each page containing such information. If no claim is made at the time of submission, information may be made available to the public without further notice. If the Commission or Executive Director agrees with the designation of confidentiality, the TCEQ will not provide the information for public inspection unless required by the Texas Attorney General or a court pursuant to an open records request. If the Executive Director does not agree with the designation of confidentiality, the person submitting the information will be notified.

8. Facilities that generate domestic wastewater shall comply with the following provisions; domestic wastewater treatment facilities at permitted industrial sites are excluded.

a. Whenever flow measurements for any domestic sewage treatment facility reach 75% of the permitted daily average or annual average flow for three consecutive months, the permittee must initiate engineering and financial planning for expansion and/ or upgrading of the domestic wastewater treatment and/or collection facilities. Whenever the flow reaches 90% of the permitted daily average or annual average flow for three consecutive months, the permittee shall obtain necessary authorization from the Commission to commence construction of the necessary additional treatment and/ or collection facilities. In the case of a domestic wastewater treatment facility which reaches 75% of the permitted daily average or annual average flow for three consecutive months, and the planned population to be served or the quantity of waste produced is not expected to exceed the design limitations of the treatment facility, the permittee shall submit an engineering report supporting this claim to the Executive Director of the Commission.

If in the judgment of the Executive Director the population to be served will not cause permit noncompliance, then the requirement of this section may be waived. To be effective, any waiver must be in writing and signed by the Director of the Enforcement Division (MC 219) of the Commission, and such waiver of these requirements will be reviewed upon expiration of the existing permit; however, any such waiver shall not be interpreted as condoning or excusing any violation of any permit parameter.

b. The plans and specifications for domestic sewage collection and treatment works associated with any domestic permit must be approved by the Commission and failure to secure approval before commencing construction of such works or making a discharge is a violation of this permit and each day is an additional violation until approval has been secured.

Page 14 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

c. Permits for domestic wastewater treatment plants are granted subject to the policy of the Commission to encourage the development of area-wide waste collection, treatment, and disposal systems. The Commission reserves the right to amend any domestic wastewater permit in accordance with applicable procedural requirements to require the system covered by this permit to be integrated into an area-wide system, should such be developed; to require the delivery of the wastes authorized to be collected in, treated by or discharged from said system, to such area-wide system; or to amend this permit in any other particular to effectuate the Commission's policy. Such amendments may be made when the changes required are advisable for water quality control purposes and are feasible on the basis of waste treatment technology, engineering, financial, and related considerations existing at the time the changes are required, exclusive of the loss of investment in or revenues from any then existing or proposed waste collection, treatment or disposal system.

9. Domestic wastewater treatment plants shall be operated and maintained by sewage plant operators holding a valid certificate of competency at the required level as defined in 30 TAC Chapter 30.

10. For Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), the 30-day average (or monthly average) percent removal for BOD and TSS shall not be less than 85%, unless otherwise authorized by this permit.

11. Facilities that generate industrial solid waste as defined in 30 TAC§ 335.1 shall comply with these provisions:

a. Any solid waste, as defined in 30 TAC § 335.1 (including but not limited to such wastes as garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment, water supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility, discarded materials, discarded materials to be recycled, whether the waste is solid, liquid, or semisolid), generated by the permittee during the management and treatment of wastewater, must be managed in accordance with all applicable provisions of 30 TAC Chapter 335, relating to Industrial Solid Waste Management.

b. Industrial wastewater that is being collected, accumulated, stored, or processed before discharge through any final discharge outfall, specified by this permit, is considered to be industrial solid waste until the wastewater passes through the actual point source discharge and must be managed in accordance with all applicable provisions of 30 TAC Chapter 335.

c. The permittee shall provide written notification, pursuant to the requirements of 30 TAC § 335.8(b)(1), to the Corrective Action Section (MC 127) of the Remediation Division informing the Commission of any closure activity involving an Industrial Solid Waste Management Unit, at least 90 days prior to conducting such an activity.

d. Construction of any industrial solid waste management unit requires the prior written notification of the proposed activity to the Registration and Reporting Section (MC 129) of the Permitting and Registration Support Division. No person shall dispose of industrial solid waste, including sludge or other solids from wastewater treatment processes, prior to fulfilling the deed recordation requirements of 30 TAC § 335.5.

Page 15 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

e. The term "industrial solid waste management unit" means a landfill, surface impoundment, waste-pile, industrial furnace, incinerator, cement kiln, injection well, container, drum, salt dome waste containment cavern, or any other structure vessel, appurtenance, or other improvement on land used to manage industrial solid waste.

f. The permittee shall keep management records for all sludge (or other waste) removed from any wastewater treatment process. These records shall fulfill all applicable requirements of 30 TAC § 335 and must include the following, as it pertains to wastewater treatment and discharge:

i. Volume of waste and date(s) generated from treatment process; n. Volume of waste disposed of on-site or shipped off-site; m. Date(s) of disposal; iv. Identity of hauler or transporter; v. Location of disposal site; and vi. Method of final disposal.

The above records shall be maintained on a monthly basis. The records shall be retained at the facility site, or shall be readily available for review by authorized representatives of the TCEQ for at least five years.

12. For industrial facilities to which the requirements of 30 TAC § 335 do not apply, sludge and solid wastes, including tank cleaning and contaminated solids for disposal, shall be disposed of in accordance with THSC § 361.

TCEQ Revision 08/2008

Page 16 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

SLUDGE PROVISIONS

The permittee is authorized to dispose of sludge only at a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) authorized land application site, co-disposal landfill, wastewater treatment facility, or facility that further processes sludge. The disposal of sludge by land application on property owned, leased or under the direct control of the permittee is a violation of the permit unless the site is authorized with the TCEQ. This provision does not authorize Distribution and Marketing of Class A or Class AB Sewage Sludge. This provision does not authorize the permittee to land apply sludge on property owned, leased or under the direct control of the permittee.

SECTION I. REQUIREMENTS APPLYING TO ALL SEWAGE SLUDGE LAND APPLICATION

A. General Requirements

1. The permittee shall handle and dispose of sewage sludge in accordance with 30 TAC § 312 and all other applicable state and federal regulations in a manner that protects public health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects due to any toxic pollutants that may be present in the sludge.

2. In all cases, if the person (permit holder) who prepares the sewage sludge supplies the sewage sludge to another person for land application use or to the owner or lease holder of the land, the permit holder shall provide necessary information to the parties who receive the sludge to assure compliance with these regulations.

B. Testing Requirements

1. Sewage sludge shall be tested once during the term of this permit in accordance with the method specified in both 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II and 40 CFR Part 268, Appendix I [Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)] or other method that receives the prior approval of the TCEQ for the contaminants listed in 40 CFR Part 261.24, Table 1. Sewage sludge failing this test shall be managed according to RCRA standards for generators of hazardous waste, and the waste's disposition must be in accordance with all applicable requirements for hazardous waste processing, storage, or disposal. Following failure of any TCLP test, the management or disposal of sewage sludge at a facility other than an authorized hazardous waste processing, storage, or disposal facility shall be prohibited until such time as the permittee can demonstrate the sewage sludge no longer exhibits the hazardous waste toxicity characteristics (as demonstrated by the results of the TCLP tests). A written report shall be provided to both the TCEQ Registration and Reporting Section (MC 129) of the Permitting and Registration Support Division and the Regional Director (MC Region 11) within seven (7) days after failing the TCLPTest.

Page 17 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

The report shall contain test results, certification that unauthorized waste management has stopped, and a summary of alternative disposal plans that comply with RCRA standards for the management of hazardous waste. The report shall be addressed to: Director, Permitting and Registration Support Division (MC 129), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. In addition, the permittee shall prepare an annual report on the results of all sludge toxicity testing. This annual report shall be submitted to the TCEQ Regional Office (MC Region 11) and the Compli?-nce Monitoring Team (MC 224) of the Enforcement Division by September 30 th of each year. The permittee must submit this annual report using the online electronic reporting system available through the TCEQ website unless the permittee requests and obtains an electronic reporting waiver.

2. Sewage sludge shall not be applied to the land if the concentration of the pollutants exceeds the pollutant concentration criteria in Table 1. The frequency of testing for pollutants in Table 1 is found in Section LC. of this permit.

TABLE 1

Pollutant Ceiling Concentration (Milligrams per kilogram)* Arsenic 75 Cadmium 85 Chromium 3000 Copper 4300 Lead 840 Mercury 57 Molybdenum 75 Nickel 420 PCBs 49 Selenium 100 Zinc 7500

* Dry weight basis

3. Pathogen Control

All sewage sludge that is applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site must be treated by one of the following methods to ensure that the sludge meets either the Class A, Class AB or Class B pathogen requirements.

a. For sewage sludge to be classified as Class A with respect to pathogens, the density of fecal coliform in the sewage sludge must be less than 1,000 most probable number (MPN) per gram of total solids (dry weight basis), or the density of Salmonella sp. bacteria in the sewage sludge must be less than three MPN per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) at the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed. In addition, one of the alternatives listed below must be met:

Alternative 1 - The temperature of the sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be maintained at or above a specific value for a period of time. See 30 TAC§ 312.82(a)(2)(A) for specific information;

Page 18 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

Alternative 5 (PFRP) - Sewage sludge that is used or disposed of must be treated in one of the Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) described in 40 CFR Part 503, Appendix B. PFRP include composting, heat drying, heat treatment, and thermophilic aerobic digestion; or

Alternative 6 (PFRP Equivalent) - Sewage sludge that is used or disposed of must be treated in a process that has been approved by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as being equivalent to those in Alternative 5.

b. For sewage sludge to be classified as Class AB with respect to pathogens, the density of fecal coliform in the sewage sludge must be less than 1,000 MPN per gram of total solids (dry weight basis), or the density of Salmonella sp. bacteria in the sewage sludge be less than three MPN per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) at the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed. In addition, one of the alternatives listed below must be met:

Alternative 2 - The pH of the sewage sludge that is used or disposed shall be raised to above 12 std. units and shall remain above 12 std. units for 72 hours.

The temperature of the sewage sludge shall be above 52° Celsius for 12 hours or longer during the period that the pH of the sewage sludge is above 12 std. units.

At the end of the 72-hour period during which the pH of the sewage sludge is above 12 std. units, the sewage sludge shall be air dried to achieve a percent solids in the sewage sludge greater than 50%; or

Alternative 3 -The sewage sludge shall be analyzed for enteric viruses prior to pathogen treatment. The limit for enteric viruses is less than one Plaque-forming Unit per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) either before or following pathogen treatment. See 30 TAC§ 312.82(a)(2)(C)(i-iii) for specific information. The sewage sludge shall be analyzed for viable helminth ova prior to pathogen treatment. The limit for viable helminth ova is less than one per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) either before or following pathogen treatment. See 30 TAC§ 312.82(a)(2)(C)(iv-vi) for specific information; or

Alternative 4 - The density of enteric viruses in the sewage sludge shall be less than one Plaque-forming Unit per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) at the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed. The density of viable helminth ova in the sewage sludge shall be less than one per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis) at the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed.

c. Sewage sludge that meets the requirements of Class AB sewage sludge may be classified a Class A sewage sludge if a variance request is submitted in writing that is supported by substantial documentation demonstrating equivalent methods for reducing odors and written approval is granted by the executive director. The executive director may deny the variance request or revoke that approved variance if it is determined that the variance may potentially endanger human health or the environment, or create nuisance odor conditions.

d. Three alternatives are available to demonstrate compliance with Class B criteria for sewage sludge.

Page 19 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

Alternative 1

1. A minimum of seven random samples of the sewage sludge shall be collected within 48 hours of the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed of during each monitoring episode for the sewage sludge.

11. The geometric mean of the density of fecal coliform in the samples collected shall be less than either 2,000,000 MPN per gram of total solids (dry weight basis) or 2,000,000 Colony Forming Units per gram of total solids (dry weight basis).

Alternative 2 - Sewage sludge that is used or disposed of shall be treated in one of the Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP) described in 40 CFR Part 503, Appendix B, so long as all of the following requirements are met by the generator of the sewage sludge.

1. Prior to use or disposal, all the sewage sludge must have been generated from a single location, except as provided in paragraph v. below;

ii. An independent Texas Licensed Professional Engineer must make a certification to the generator of a sewage sludge that the wastewater treatment facility generating the sewage sludge is designed to achieve one of the PSRP at the permitted design loading of the facility. The certification need only be repeated if the design loading of the facility is increased. The certification shall include a statement indicating the design meets all the applicable standards specified in Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 503;

m. Prior to any off-site transportation or on-site use or disposal of any sewage sludge generated at a wastewater treatment facility, the chief certified operator of the wastewater treatment facility or other responsible official who manages the processes to significantly reduce pathogens at the wastewater treatment facility for the permittee, shall certify that the sewage sludge underwent at least the minimum operational requirements necessary in order to meet one of the PSRP. The acceptable processes and the minimum operational and record keeping requirements shall be in accordance with established U.S. Environmental Protection Agency final guidance;

1v. All certification records and operational records describing how the requirements of this paragraph were met shall be kept by the generator for a minimum of three years and be available for inspection by commission staff for review; and

v. If the sewage sludge is generated from a mixture of sources, resulting from a person who prepares sewage sludge from more than one wastewater treatment facility, the resulting derived product shall meet one of the PSRP, and shall meet the certification, operation, and record keeping requirements of this paragraph.

Alternative 3 - Sewage sludge shall be treated in an equivalent process that has been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, so long as all of the following requirements are met by the generator of the sewage sludge.

1. Prior to use or disposal, all the sewage sludge must have been generated from a single location, except as provided in paragraph v. below;

Page 20 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

ii. Prior to any off-site transportation or on-site use or disposal of any sewage sludge generated at a wastewater treatment facility, the chief certified operator of the wastewater treatment facility or other responsible official who manages the processes to significantly reduce pathogens at the wastewater treatment facility for the permittee, shall certify that the sewage sludge underwent at least the minimum operational requirements necessary in order to meet one of the PSRP. The acceptable processes and the minimum operational and record keeping requirements shall be in accordance with established U.S. Environmental Protection Agency final guidance;

111. All certification records and operational records describing how the requirements of this paragraph were met shall be kept by the generator for a minimum of three years and be available for inspection by commission staff for review;

IV. The Executive Director will accept from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a finding of equivalency to the defined PSRP; and

v. If the sewage sludge is generated from a mixture of sources resulting from a person who prepares sewage sludge from more than one wastewater treatment facility, the resulting derived product shall meet one of the Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, and shall meet the certification, operation, and record keeping requirements of this paragraph.

In addition to the Alternatives 1 - 3, the following site restrictions must be met if Class B sludge is land applied:

1. Food crops with harvested parts that touch the sewage sludge/soil mixture and are totally above the land surface shall not be harvested for 14 months after application of sewage sludge.

ii. Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land shall not be harvested for 20 months after application of sewage sludge when the sewage sludge remains on the land surface for 4 months or longer prior to incorporation into the soil.

111. Food crops with harvested parts below the surface of the land shall not be harvested for 38 months after application of sewage sludge when the sewage sludge remains on the land surface for less than 4 months prior to incorporation into the soil.

IV. Food crops, feed crops, and fiber crops shall not be harvested for 30 days after application of sewage sludge.

v. Animals shall not be allowed to graze on the land for 30 days after application of sewage sludge.

vi. Turf grown on land where sewage sludge is applied shall not be harvested for 1 year after application of the sewage sludge when the harvested turf is placed on either land with a high potential for public exposure or a lawn.

vii. Public access to land with a high potential for public exposure shall be restricted for 1 year after application of sewage sludge.

Page 21 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

viii. Public access to land with a low potential for public exposure shall be restricted for 30 days after application of sewage sludge.

ix. Land application of sludge shall be in accordance with the buffer zone requirements found in 30 TAC § 312-44.

4. Vector Attraction Reduction Requirements

All bulk sewage sludge that is applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site shall be treated by one of the following Alternatives 1 through 10 for vector attraction reduction.

Alternative 1 - The mass of volatile solids in the sewage sludge shall be reduced by a minimum of 38%.

Alternative 2 - If Alternative 1 cannot be met for an anaerobically digested sludge, demonstration can be made by digesting a portion of the previously digested sludge anaerobically in the laboratory in a bench-scale unit for 40 additional days at a temperature between 30° and 37° Celsius. Volatile solids must be reduced by less than 17% to demonstrate compliance.

Alternative 3 - If Alternative 1 cannot be met for an aerobically digested sludge, demonstration can be made by digesting a portion of the previously digested sludge with percent solids of two percent or less aerobically in the laboratory in a bench-scale unit for 30 additional days at 20° Celsius. Volatile solids must be reduced by less than 15% to demonstrate compliance.

Alternative 4 - The specific oxygen uptake rate (SOUR) for sewage sludge treated in an aerobic process shall be equal to or less than 1.5 milligrams of oxygen per hour per gram of total solids (dry weight basis) at a temperature of 20° Celsius.

Alternative 5 - Sewage sludge shall be treated in an aerobic process for 14 days or longer. During that time, the temperature of the sewage sludge shall be higher than 40° Celsius and the average temperature of the sewage sludge shall be higher than 45° Celsius.

Alternative 6 - The pH of sewage sludge shall be raised to 12 or higher by alkali addition and, without the addition of more alkali shall remain at 12 or higher for two hours and then remain at a pH of 11.5 or higher for an additional 22 hours at the time the sewage sludge is prepared for sale or given away in a bag or other container.

Alternative 7 - The percent solids of sewage sludge that does not contain unstabilized solids generated in a primary wastewater treatment process shall be equal to or greater than 75% based on the moisture content and total solids prior to mixing with other materials. Unstabilized solids are defined as organic materials in sewage sludge that have not been treated in either an aerobic or anaerobic treatment process.

Page 22 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

Alternative 8 - The percent solids of sewage sludge that contains unstabilized solids generated in a primary wastewater treatment process shall be equal to or greater than 90% based on the moisture content and total solids prior to mixing with other materials at the time the sludge is used. Unstabilized solids are defined as organic materials in sewage sludge that have not been treated in either an aerobic or anaerobic treatment process.

Alternative 9 - i. Sewage sludge shall be injected below the surface of the land.

ii. No significant amount of the sewage sludge shall be present on the land surface within one hour after the sewage sludge is injected.

111. When sewage sludge that is injected below the surface of the land is Class A or Class AB with respect to pathogens, the sewage sludge shall be injected below the land surface within eight hours after being discharged from the pathogen treatment process.

Alternative 10- i. Sewage sludge applied to the land surface or placed on a surface disposal site shall be incorporated into the soil within six hours after application to or placement on the land.

11. When sewage sludge that is incorporated into the soil is Class A or Class AB with respect to pathogens, the sewage sludge shall be applied to or placed on the land within eight hours after being discharged from the pathogen treatment process.

C. Monitoring Requirements

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure - once during the term of this permit (TCLP) Test PCBs - once during the term of this permit

All metal constituents and fecal coliform or Salmonella sp. bacteria shall be monitored at the appropriate frequency shown below, pursuant to 30 TAC§ 312-46(a)(1):

Amount of sewage sludge (*) metric tons per 365-day period Monitoring Frequency

o to less than 290 Once/Year

290 to less than 1,500 Once/Quarter

1,500 to less than 15,000 Once/Two Months

15,000 or greater Once/Month

(*) The amount of bulk sewage sludge applied to the land (dry wt. basis).

Representative samples of sewage sludge shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with the methods referenced in 30 TAC § 312. 7

Page 23 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

Identify each of the analytic methods used by the facility to analyze enteric viruses, fecal coliforms, helminth ova, Salmonella sp., and other regulated parameters.

Identify in the following categories (as applicable) the sewage sludge treatment process or processes at the facility: preliminary operations (e.g., sludge grinding and degritting), thickening (concentration), stabilization, anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, composting, conditioning, disinfection (e.g., beta ray irradiation, gamma ray irradiation, pasteurization), dewatering (e.g., centrifugation, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons), heat drying, thermal reduction, and methane or biogas capture and recovery.

Identify the nature of material generated by the facility (such as a biosolid for beneficial use or land-farming, or sewage sludge for disposal at a monofill) and whether the material is ultimately conveyed off-site in bulk or in bags.

Page 24 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

SECTION II. REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO BULK SEWAGE SLUDGE FOR APPLICATION TO THE LAND MEETING CLASS A, CLASS AB or B PATHOGEN REDUCTION AND THE CUMULATIVE LOADING RATES IN TABLE 2, OR CLASS B PATHOGEN REDUCTION AND THE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN TABLE 3

For those permittees meeting Class A, Class AB or B pathogen reduction requirements and that meet the cumulative loading rates in Table 2 below, or the Class B pathogen reduction requirements and contain concentrations of pollutants below listed in Table 3, the following conditions apply:

A. Pollutant Limits Table 2

Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate Pollutant (pounds per acre)* Arsenic 36 Cadmium 35 Chromium 2677 Copper 1339 Lead 268 Mercury 15 Molybdenum Report Only Nickel 375 Selenium 89 Zinc 2500

Table 3

Monthly Average Concentration Pollutant (milligrams per kilogram)* Arsenic 41 Cadmium 39 Chromium 1200 Copper 1500 Lead 300 Mercury 17 Molybdenum Report Only Nickel 420 Selenium 36 Zinc 2800 *Dry weight basis

B. Pathogen Control

All bulk sewage sludge that is applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, a reclamation site, shall be treated by either Class A, Class AB or Class B pathogen reduction requirements as defined above in Section I.B.3.

Page 25 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

C. Management Practices

1. Bulk sewage sludge shall not be applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site that is flooded, frozen, or snow-covered so that the bulk sewage sludge enters a wetland or other waters in the State.

2. Bulk sewage sludge not meeting Class A requirements shall be land applied in a manner which complies with Applicability in accordance with 30 TAC §312-41 and the Management Requirements in accordance with 30 TAC § 312-44.

3. Bulk sewage sludge shall be applied at or below the agronomic rate of the cover crop.

4. An information sheet shall be provided to the person who receives bulk sewage sludge sold or given away. The information sheet shall contain the following information:

a. The name and address of the person who prepared the sewage sludge that is sold or given away in a bag or other container for application to the land.

b. A statement that application of the sewage sludge to the land is prohibited except in accordance with the instruction on the label or information sheet.

c. The annual whole sludge application rate for the sewage sludge application rate for the sewage sludge that does not cause any of the cumulative pollutant loading rates in Table 2 above to be exceeded, unless the pollutant concentrations in Table 3 found in Section II above are met.

D. Notification Requirements

1. If bulk sewage sludge is applied to land in a State other than Texas, written notice shall be provided prior to the initial land application to the permitting authority for the State in which the bulk sewage sludge is proposed to be applied. The notice shall include:

a. The location, by street address, and specific latitude and longitude, of each land application site.

b. The approximate time period bulk sewage sludge will be applied to the site.

c. The name, address, telephone number, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number (if appropriate) for the person who will apply the bulk sewage sludge.

2. The permittee shall give 180 days prior notice to the Executive Director in care of the Wastewater Permitting Section (MC 148) of the Water Quality Division of any change planned in the sewage sludge disposal practice.

E. Record Keeping Requirements

The sludge documents will be retained at the facility site and/or shall be readily available for review by a TCEQ representative. The person who prepares bulk sewage sludge or a sewage sludge material shall develop the following information and shall retain the information at

Page 26 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

the facility site and/ or shall be readily available for review by a TCEQ representative for a period of five years. If the permittee supplies the sludge to another person who land applies the sludge, the permittee shall notify the land applier of the requirements for record keeping found in 30 TAC§ 312-47 for persons who land apply.

1. The concentration (mg/kg) in the sludge of each pollutant listed in Table 3 above and the applicable pollutant concentration criteria (mg/kg), or the applicable cumulative pollutant loading rate and the applicable cumulative pollutant loading rate limit (lbs/ac) listed in Table 2 above.

2. A description of how the pathogen reduction requirements are met (including site restrictions for Class AB and Class B sludge, if applicable).

3. A description of how the vector attraction reduction requirements are met.

4. A description of how the management practices listed above in Section II.Care being met.

5. The following certification statement:

"I certify, under penalty of law, that the applicable pathogen requirements in 30 TAC § 312.82(a) or (b) and the vector attraction reduction requirements in 30 TAC§ 312.83(b) have been met for each site on which bulk sewage sludge is applied. This determination has been made under my direction and supervision in accordance with the system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information used to determine that the management practices have been met. I am aware that there are significant penalties for false certification including fine and imprisonment."

6. The recommended agronomic loading rate from the references listed in Section II.C.3. above, as well as the actual agronomic loading rate shall be retained. The person who applies bulk sewage sludge or a sewage sludge material shall develop the following information and shall retain the information at the facility site and/ or shall be readily available for review by a TCEQ representative indefinitely. If the permittee supplies the sludge to another person who land applies the sludge, the permittee shall notify the land applier of the requirements for record keeping found in 30 TAC§ 312-47 for persons who land apply:

a. A certification statement that all applicable requirements (specifically listed) have been met, and that the permittee understands that there are significant penalties for false certification including fine and imprisonment. See 30 TAC§ 312-47(a)(4)(A)(ii) or 30 TAC§ 312-47(a)(5)(A)(ii), as applicable, and to the permittee's specific sludge treatment activities.

b. The location, by street address, and specific latitude and longitude, of each site on which sludge is applied.

c. The number of acres in each site on which bulk sludge is applied.

d. The date and time sludge is applied to each site.

Page 27 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

e. The cumulative amount of each pollutant in pounds/acre listed in Table 2 applied to each site.

f. The total amount of sludge applied to each site in dry tons.

The above records shall be maintained on-site on a monthly basis and shall be made available to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality upon request.

F. Reporting Requirements

The permittee shall report annually to the TCEQ Regional Office (MC Region 11) and Compliance Monitoring Team (MC 224) of the Enforcement Division, by September 30 th of each year the following information. The permittee must submit this annual report using the online electronic reporting system available through the TCEQ website unless the permittee requests and obtains an electronic reporting waiver.

1. Identify in the following categories (as applicable) the sewage sludge treatment process or processes at the facility: preliminary operations (e.g., sludge grinding and degritting), thickening (concentration), stabilization, anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, composting, conditioning, disinfection (e.g., beta ray irradiation, gamma ray irradiation, pasteurization), dewatering (e.g., centrifugation, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons), heat drying, thermal reduction, and methane or biogas capture and recovery.

2. Identify the nature of material generated by the facility (such as a biosolid for beneficial use or land-farming, or sewage sludge for disposal at a monofill) and whether the material is ultimately conveyed off-site in bulk or in bags.

3. Results of tests performed for pollutants found in either Table 2 or 3 as appropriate for the permittee's land application practices.

4. The frequency of monitoring listed in Section I.C. that applies to the permittee.

5. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) results.

6. PCB concentration in sludge in mg/kg.

7. Identity of hauler(s) and TCEQ transporter number.

8. Date(s) of transport.

9. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality registration number, if applicable.

10. Amount of sludge disposal dry weight (lbs/acre) at each disposal site.

11. The concentration (mg/kg) in the sludge of each pollutant listed in Table 1 (defined as a monthly average) as well as the applicable pollutant concentration criteria (mg/kg) listed in Table 3 above, or the applicable pollutant loading rate limit (lbs/acre) listed in Table 2 above ifit exceeds 90% of the limit.

12. Level of pathogen reduction achieved (Class A, Class AB or Class B).

13. Alternative used as listed in Section I.B.3.(a. orb.). Alternatives describe how the pathogen reduction requirements are met. If Class B sludge, include information on how site restrictions were met.

Page 28 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

14. Identify each of the analytic methods used by the facility to analyze enteric viruses, fecal coliforms, helminth ova, Salmonella sp., and other regulated parameters.

15. Vector attraction reduction alternative used as listed in Section I.B-4-

16. Amount of sludge transported in dry tons/year.

17. The certification statement listed in either 30 TAC§ 312-47(a)(4)(A)(ii) or 30 TAC§ 312-47(a)(5)(A)(ii) as applicable to the permittee's sludge treatment activities, shall be attached to the annual reporting form.

18. When the amount of any pollutant applied to the land exceeds 90% of the cumulative pollutant loading rate for that pollutant, as described in Table 2, the permittee shall report the following information as an attachment to the annual reporting form.

a. The location, by street address, and specific latitude and longitude.

b. The number of acres in each site on which bulk sewage sludge is applied.

c. The date and time bulk sewage sludge is applied to each site.

d. The cumulative amount of each pollutant (i.e., pounds/acre) listed in Table 2 in the bulk sewage sludge applied to each site.

e. The amount of sewage sludge (i.e., dry tons) applied to each site.

The above records shall be maintained on a monthly basis and shall be made available to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality upon request.

Page 29 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

SECTION III. REQUIREMENTS APPLYING TO ALL SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSED IN A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL

A. The permittee shall handle and dispose of sewage sludge in accordance with 30 TAC§ 330 and all other applicable state and federal regulations to protect public health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects due to any toxic pollutants that may be present. The permittee shall ensure that the sewage sludge meets the requirements in 30 TAC § 330 concerning the quality of the sludge disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill.

B. If the permittee generates sewage sludge and supplies that sewage sludge to the owner or operator of a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) for disposal, the permittee shall provide to the owner or operator of the MSWLF appropriate information needed to be in compliance with the provisions of this permit.

C. The permittee shall give 180 days prior notice to the Executive Director in care of the Wastewater Permitting Section (MC 148) of the Water Quality Division of any change planned in the sewage sludge disposal practice.

D. Sewage sludge shall be tested once during the term of this permit in accordance with the method specified in both 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II and 40 CFR Part 268, Appendix I (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) or other method, which receives the prior approval of the TCEQ for contaminants listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR § 261.24. Sewage sludge failing this test shall be managed according to RCRA standards for generators of hazardous waste, and the waste's disposition must be in accordance with all applicable requirements for hazardous waste processing, storage, or disposal.

Following failure of any TCLP test, the management or disposal of sewage sludge at a facility other than an authorized hazardous waste processing, storage, or disposal facility shall be prohibited until such time as the permittee can demonstrate the sewage sludge no longer exhibits the hazardous waste toxicity characteristics (as demonstrated by the results of the TCLP tests). A written report shall be provided to both the TCEQ Registration and Reporting Section (MC 129) of the Permitting and Registration Support Division and the Regional Director (MC Region 11) of the appropriate TCEQ field office within 7 days after failing the TCLP Test.

The report shall contain test results, certification that unauthorized waste management has stopped, and a summary of alternative disposal plans that comply with RCRA standards for the management of hazardous waste. The report shall be addressed to: Director, Permitting and Registration Support Division (MC 129), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P. 0. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. In addition, the permittee shall prepare an annual report on the results of all sludge toxicity testing. This annual report shall be submitted to the TCEQ Regional Office (MC Region 11) and the Compliance Monitoring Team (MC 224) of the Enforcement Division by September 30 of each year.

E. Sewage sludge shall be tested as needed, in accordance with the requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 330.

F. Record Keeping Requirements

The permittee shall develop the following information and shall retain the information for five years.

Page 30 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

1. The description (including procedures followed and the results) of all liquid Paint Filter Tests performed.

2. The description (including procedures followed and results) of all TCLP tests performed.

The above records shall be maintained on-site on a monthly basis and shall be made available to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality upon request.

G. Reporting Requirements

The permittee shall report annually to the TCEQ Regional Office (MC Region 11) and Compliance Monitoring Team (MC 224) of the Enforcement Division by September 30 th of each year the following information. The permittee must submit this annual report using the online electronic reporting system available through the TCEQ website unless the permittee requests and obtains an electronic reporting waiver.

1. Identify in the following categories (as applicable) the sewage sludge treatment process or processes at the facility: preliminary operations (e.g., sludge grinding and degritting), thickening (concentration), stabilization, anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, composting, conditioning, disinfection (e.g., beta ray irradiation, gamma ray irradiation, pasteurization), dewatering (e.g., centrifugation, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons), heat drying, thermal reduction, and methane or biogas capture and recovery.

2. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) results.

3. Annual sludge production in dry tons/year.

4. Amount of sludge disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill in dry tons/year.

5. Amount of sludge transported interstate in dry tons/year.

6. A certification that the sewage sludge meets the requirements of 30 TAC § 330 concerning the quality of the sludge disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill.

7. Identity of hauler(s) and transporter registration number.

8. Owner of disposal site(s).

9. Location of disposal site(s).

10. Date(s) of disposal.

The above records shall be maintained on-site on a monthly basis and shall be made available to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality upon request.

Page 31 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

SECTION IV. REQUIREMENTS APPLYING TO SLUDGE TRANSPORTED TO ANOTHER FACILI1Y FOR FURTHER PROCESSING

These provisions apply to sludge that is transported to another wastewater treatment facility or facility that further processes sludge. These provisions are intended to allow transport of sludge to facilities that have been authorized to accept sludge. These provisions do not limit the ability of the receiving facility to determine whether to accept the sludge, nor do they limit the ability of the receiving facility to request additional testing or documentation.

A. General Requirements

1. The permittee shall handle and dispose of sewage sludge in accordance with 30 TAC Chapter 312 and all other applicable state and federal regulations in a manner that protects public health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects due to any toxic pollutants that may be present in the sludge.

2. Sludge may only be transported using a registered transporter or using an approved pipeline.

B. Record Keeping Requirements

1. For sludge transported by an approved pipeline, the permittee must maintain records of the following:

a. the amount of sludge transported;

b. the date of transport;

c. the name and TCEQ permit number of the receiving facility or facilities;

d. the location of the receiving facility or facilities;

e. the name and TCEQ permit number of the facility that generated the waste; and

f. copy of the written agreement between the permittee and the receiving facility to accept sludge.

2. For sludge transported by a registered transporter, the permittee must maintain records of the completed trip tickets in accordance with 30 TAC§ 312.145(a)(1)-(7) and amount of sludge transported.

3. The above records shall be maintained on-site on a monthly basis and shall be made available to the TCEQ upon request. These records shall be retained for at least five years.

Page 32 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

C. Reporting Requirements

The permittee shall report the following information annually to the TCEQ Regional Office (MC Region 11) and Compliance Monitoring Team (MC 224) of the Enforcement Division, by September 30 th of each year. The permittee must submit this annual report using the online electronic reporting system available through the TCEQ website unless the permittee requests and obtains an electronic reporting waiver.

1. Identify in the following categories (as applicable) the sewage sludge treatment process or processes at the facility: preliminary operations (e.g., sludge grinding and degritting), thickening (concentration), stabilization, anaerobic digestion, aerobic digestion, composting, conditioning, disinfection (e.g., beta ray irradiation, gamma ray irradiation, pasteurization), dewatering (e.g., centrifugation, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons), heat drying, thermal reduction, and methane or biogas capture and recovery.

2. the annual sludge production;

3. the amount of sludge transported;

4. the owner of each receiving facility;

5. the location of each receiving facility; and

6. the date(s) of disposal at each receiving facility.

TCEQ Revision 10/2019

Page 33 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

1. The permittee shall employ or contract with one or more licensed wastewater treatment facility operators or wastewater system operations companies holding a valid license or registration according to the requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 30, Occupational Licenses and Registrations, and in particular 30 TAC Chapter 30, Subchapter J, Wastewater Operators and Operations Companies.

This Category C facility must be operated by a chief operator or an operator holding a Class C license or higher. The facility must be operated a minimum of five days per week by the licensed chief operator or an operator holding the required level of license or higher. The licensed chief operator or operator holding the required level of license or higher must be available by telephone or pager seven days per week. Where shift operation of the wastewater treatment facility is necessary, each shift that does not have the on-site supervision of the licensed chief operator must be supervised by an operator in charge who is licensed not less than one level below the category for the facility.

2. The facility is not located in the Coastal Management Program boundary.

3. The permittee shall comply with the requirements of 30 TAC§ 309.13(a) through (d). In addition, by ownership of the required buffer zone area, the permittee shall comply with the requirements of 30 TAC§ 309.13(e).

4. The permittee shall provide facilities for the protection of its wastewater treatment facility from a 100-year flood.

5. In accordance with 30 TAC § 319.9, a permittee that has at least twelve months of uninterrupted compliance with its bacteria limit may notify the commission in writing of its compliance and request a less frequent measurement schedule. To request a less frequent schedule, the permittee shall submit a written request to the TCEQ Wastewater Permitting Section (MC 148) for each phase that includes a different monitoring frequency. The request must contain all of the reported bacteria values (Daily Avg. and Daily Max/Single Grab) for the twelve consecutive months immediately prior to the request. If the Executive Director finds that a less frequent measurement schedule is protective of human health and the environment, the permittee may be given a less frequent measurement schedule. For this permit, 1/month may be reduced to 1/quarter. A violation of any bacteria limit by a facility that has been granted a less frequent measurement schedule will require the permittee to return to the standard frequency schedule and submit written notice to the TCEQ Wastewater Permitting Section (MC 148). The permittee may not apply for another reduction in measurement frequency for at least 24 months from the date of the last violation. The Executive Director may establish a more frequent measurement schedule if necessary to protect human health or the environment.

6. Prior to construction of the treatment facility, the permittee shall submit to the TCEQ Wastewater Permitting Section (MC 148) a summary transmittal letter in accordance with the requirements in 30 TAC§ 217.6(d). If requested by the Wastewater Permitting Section, the permittee shall submit plans and specifications and a final engineering design report which comply with 30 TAC Chapter 217, Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems. The permittee shall clearly show how the treatment system will meet the permitted effluent limitations required on Page 2 of this permit. A copy of the summary transmittal letter shall be available at the plant site for inspection by authorized representatives of the TCEQ.

7. Reporting requirements according to 30 TAC§§ 319.1-319.11 and any additional effluent reporting requirements contained in this permit are suspended from the effective date of the permit until plant startup or discharge from the facility described by this permit, whichever occurs first. The permittee shall provide written notice to the TCEQ Regional Office (MC Region 11) and the Applications Review

Page 34 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. TPDES Permit No. WQ0015878001

and Processing Team (MC 148) of the Water Quality Division at least forty-five (45) days prior to plant startup or anticipated discharge, whichever occurs first, on Notification of Completion Form 20007.

Page 35 APPENDIX 3

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS RECEIVED ON 2/24/2022 8:00 AM

FILED ACCEPTED XXX-XX-XXXX XXX-XX-XXXX 2/23/2022 4:30 PM 2/24/2022 8:14 AM STATE OFFICE OF STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Jessie Harbin, CLERK AIRW2017-7, LP Jessie Harbin, CLERK

Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY APPLICATION FOR NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT

March 2020

AIRW - EXH. 4 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DOMESTIC WASTEWATER PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST

Complete and submit this checklist with the application.

APPLICANT: AIRW2017-7, LP PERMIT NUMBER: Click here to enter text. Indicate if each of the following items is included in your application.

Y N Y N Administrative Report 1.0 ☒ ☐ Original USGS Map ☒ ☐ Administrative Report 1.1 ☒ ☐ Affected Landowners Map ☒ ☐ SPIF ☒ ☐ Landowner Disk or Labels ☒ ☐ Core Data Form ☒ ☐ Buffer Zone Map ☒ ☐ Technical Report 1.0 ☒ ☐ Flow Diagram ☒ ☐ Technical Report 1.1 ☒ ☐ Site Drawing ☒ ☐ Worksheet 2.0 ☒ ☐ Original Photographs ☒ ☐ Worksheet 2.1 ☐ ☒ Design Calculations ☒ ☐ Worksheet 3.0 ☐ ☒ Solids Management Plan ☒ ☐ Worksheet 3.1 ☐ ☒ Water Balance ☐ ☒ Worksheet 3.2 ☐ ☒ Worksheet 3.3 ☐ ☒ Worksheet 4.0 ☐ ☒ Worksheet 5.0 ☐ ☒ Worksheet 6.0 ☐ ☒ Worksheet 7.0 ☐ ☒

For TCEQ Use Only

Segment Number _______________________County ______________________ Expiration Date ________________________Region ______________________ Permit Number _____________________________

TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 1 of 21 00002 AIRW - EXH. 4 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY APPLICATION FOR A DOMESTIC WASTEWATER PERMIT ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 1.0 If you have questions about completing this form please contact the Applications Review and Processing Team at 512-239-4671.

Section 1. Application Fees (Instructions Page 29) Indicate the amount submitted for the application fee (check only one).

Flow New/Major Amendment Renewal <0.05 MGD $350.00 ☐ $315.00 ☐ ≥0.05 but <0.10 MGD $550.00 ☐ $515.00 ☐ ≥0.10 but <0.25 MGD $850.00 ☒ $815.00 ☐ ≥0.25 but <0.50 MGD $1,250.00 ☐ $1,215.00 ☐ ≥0.50 but <1.0 MGD $1,650.00 ☐ $1,615.00 ☐ ≥1.0 MGD $2,050.00 ☐ $2,015.00 ☐

Minor Amendment (for any flow) $150.00 ☐

Payment Information: Mailed Check/Money Order Number: 9976 Check/Money Order Amount: $850 Name Printed on Check: W^3 Owner, LP EPAY Voucher Number: Click here to enter text. Copy of Payment Voucher enclosed? Yes ☐

Section 2. Type of Application (Instructions Page 29) ☒ New TPDES ☐ New TLAP

☐ Major Amendment with Renewal ☐ Minor Amendment with Renewal ☐ Major Amendment without Renewal ☐ Minor Amendment without Renewal

☐ Renewal without changes ☐ Minor Modification of permit For amendments or modifications, describe the proposed changes: Click here to enter text. For existing permits: Permit Number: WQ00Click here to enter text. EPA I.D. (TPDES only): TXClick here to enter text.

00003 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 2 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 Expiration Date: Click here to enter text.

Section 3. Facility Owner (Applicant) and Co-Applicant Information (Instructions Page 29) A. The owner of the facility must apply for the permit. What is the Legal Name of the entity (applicant) applying for this permit? AIRW2017-7, LP (The legal name must be spelled exactly as filed with the Texas Secretary of State, County, or in the legal documents forming the entity.)

If the applicant is currently a customer with the TCEQ, what is the Customer Number (CN)? You may search for your CN on the TCEQ website at http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/ CN: 605607753 What is the name and title of the person signing the application? The person must be an executive official meeting signatory requirements in 30 TAC § 305.44. Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr. First and Last Name: Matthew Hiles Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Vice President

B. Co-applicant information. Complete this section only if another person or entity is required to apply as a co-permittee. What is the Legal Name of the co-applicant applying for this permit? N/A (The legal name must be spelled exactly as filed with the TX SOS, with the County, or in the legal documents forming the entity.)

If the co-applicant is currently a customer with the TCEQ, what is the Customer Number (CN)? You may search for your CN on the TCEQ website at: http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/

CN: Click here to enter text.

What is the name and title of the person signing the application? The person must be an executive official meeting signatory requirements in 30 TAC § 305.44.

Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Click here to enter text. First and Last Name: Click here to enter text. Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Click here to enter text.

00004 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 3 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 Provide a brief description of the need for a co-permittee: Click here to enter text.

C. Core Data Form Complete the Core Data Form for each customer and include as an attachment. If the customer type selected on the Core Data Form is Individual, complete Attachment 1 of Administrative Report 1.0. Attachment: A

Section 4. Application Contact Information (Instructions Page 30) This is the person(s) TCEQ will contact if additional information is needed about this application. Provide a contact for administrative questions and technical questions.

A. Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr. First and Last Name: Matthew Hiles Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Vice President Organization Name: AIRW2017-7, LP Mailing Address: 2505 N. State Highway 360, Ste 800 City, State, Zip Code: Grand Prairie, Texas, 75050 Phone No.: (972) 471-8700 Ext.: Click here to enter text. Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: matth@liveW3.com Check one or both: ☒ Administrative Contact ☒ Technical Contact

B. Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Ms. First and Last Name: Janet Sims Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Project Manager Organization Name: Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. Mailing Address: 13740 N. Highway 183 #L6 City, State, Zip Code: Austin, Texas 78750 Phone No.: (512) 735-1001 Ext.: Click here to enter text. Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: jsims@perkinsconsultants.com Check one or both: ☒ Administrative Contact ☒ Technical Contact

Section 5. Permit Contact Information (Instructions Page 30) Provide two names of individuals that can be contacted throughout the permit term. A. Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr.

00005 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 4 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 First and Last Name: Matthew Hiles Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Vice President Organization Name: AIRW2017-7, LP Mailing Address: 2505 N. State Highway 360, Ste 800 City, State, Zip Code: Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 Phone No.: (972) 471-8700 Ext.: Click here to enter text. Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: matth@liveW3.com B. Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr. First and Last Name: Marcus Hiles Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: CEO Organization Name: AIRW2017-7, LP Mailing Address: 2505 N. State Highway 360, Ste 800 City, State, Zip Code: Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 Phone No.: (972) 471-8700 Ext.: Click here to enter text. Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: marcush@liveW3.com

Section 6. Billing Information (Instructions Page 30) The permittee is responsible for paying the annual fee. The annual fee will be assessed to permits in effect on September 1 of each year. The TCEQ will send a bill to the address provided in this section. The permittee is responsible for terminating the permit when it is no longer needed (using form TCEQ-20029). Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr. First and Last Name: Matthew Hiles Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Vice President Organization Name: AIRW2017-7, LP Mailing Address: 2505 N. State Highway 360, Ste 800 City, State, Zip Code: Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 Phone No.: (972) 471-8700 Ext.: Click here to enter text. Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: matth@liveW3.com

Section 7. DMR/MER Contact Information (Instructions Page 31) Provide the name and complete mailing address of the person delegated to receive and submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (EPA 3320-1) or maintain Monthly Effluent Reports.

00006 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 5 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr. First and Last Name: Abel Bautista Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Wastewater Compliance Coordinator Organization Name: Aqua Texas Mailing Address: 2211 Louetta Road City, State, Zip Code: Spring, Texas 77388 Phone No.: (281) 651-0174 Ext.: 54119 Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: ABautista@AquaAmerica.com

DMR data is required to be submitted electronically. Create an account at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/netdmr/netdmr.html.

Section 8. Public Notice Information (Instructions Page 31) A. Individual Publishing the Notices Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Ms. First and Last Name: Janet Sims Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Project Manager Organization Name: Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. Mailing Address: 13740 N. Highway 183, #L6 City, State, Zip Code: Austin, Texas 78750 Phone No.: (512) 735-1001 Ext.: Click here to enter text. Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: jsims@perkinsconsultants.com

B. Method for Receiving Notice of Receipt and Intent to Obtain a Water Quality Permit Package Indicate by a check mark the preferred method for receiving the first notice and instructions:

☒ E-mail Address ☐ Fax ☐ Regular Mail

C. Contact person to be listed in the Notices Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr. First and Last Name: Matthew Hiles

00007 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 6 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Vice President Organization Name: AIRW2017-7, LP Phone No.: (972) 471-8700 Ext.: Click here to enter text. E-mail: matth@liveW3.com

D. Public Viewing Information If the facility or outfall is located in more than one county, a public viewing place for each county must be provided. Public building name: Georgetown Public Library Location within the building: Reference desk Physical Address of Building: 402 West 8th Street City: Georgetown County: Williamson Contact Name: Librarian Phone No.: (512) 930-3551 Ext.: Click here to enter text.

E. Bilingual Notice Requirements: This information is required for new, major amendment, and renewal applications. It is not required for minor amendment or minor modification applications. This section of the application is only used to determine if alternative language notices will be needed. Complete instructions on publishing the alternative language notices will be in your public notice package. Please call the bilingual/ESL coordinator at the nearest elementary and middle schools and obtain the following information to determine whether an alternative language notices are required. 1. Is a bilingual education program required by the Texas Education Code at the elementary or middle school nearest to the facility or proposed facility? ☒ Yes ☐ No

If no, publication of an alternative language notice is not required; skip to Section 9 below.

2. Are the students who attend either the elementary school or the middle school enrolled in a bilingual education program at that school? ☒ Yes ☐ No

3. Do the students at these schools attend a bilingual education program at another location? ☐ Yes ☒ No

00008 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 7 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 4. Would the school be required to provide a bilingual education program but the school has waived out of this requirement under 19 TAC §89.1205(g)? ☐ Yes ☐ No N/A

5. If the answer is yes to question 1, 2, 3, or 4, public notices in an alternative language are required. Which language is required by the bilingual program? Spanish

Section 9. Regulated Entity and Permitted Site Information (Instructions Page 33) A. If the site is currently regulated by TCEQ, provide the Regulated Entity Number (RN) issued to this site. RN This application is for a new facility. Search the TCEQ’s Central Registry at http://www15.tceq.texas.gov/crpub/ to determine if the site is currently regulated by TCEQ. B. Name of project or site (the name known by the community where located): Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility C. Owner of treatment facility: AIRW2017-7, LP Ownership of Facility: ☐ Public ☒ Private ☐ Both ☐ Federal D. Owner of land where treatment facility is or will be: Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): First and Last Name: AIRW2017-7, LP Mailing Address: 2505 N. State Highway 360, Ste 800 City, State, Zip Code: Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 Phone No.: (972) 471-8700 E-mail Address: matth@liveW3.com If the landowner is not the same person as the facility owner or co-applicant, attach a lease agreement or deed recorded easement. See instructions. Attachment: N/A

E. Owner of effluent disposal site: Not applicable. Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): N/A First and Last Name: Click here to enter text. Mailing Address: Click here to enter text. City, State, Zip Code: Click here to enter text. Phone No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: Click here to enter text. If the landowner is not the same person as the facility owner or co-applicant, attach a lease agreement or deed recorded easement. See instructions.

Attachment: Not Applicable

00009 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 8 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 F. Owner of sewage sludge disposal site (if authorization is requested for sludge disposal on property owned or controlled by the applicant): Not Applicable Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Click here to enter text. First and Last Name: Click here to enter text. Mailing Address: Click here to enter text. City, State, Zip Code: Click here to enter text. Phone No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: Click here to enter text. If the landowner is not the same person as the facility owner or co-applicant, attach a lease agreement or deed recorded easement. See instructions. Attachment:

Section 10. TPDES Discharge Information (Instructions Page 34) A. Is the wastewater treatment facility location in the existing permit accurate? ☐ Yes ☒ No If no, or a new permit application, please give an accurate description: The proposed Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility will be located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Rockride Lane (County Road 110) and Westinghouse Road (County Road 111) in Williamson County, Texas.

B. Are the point(s) of discharge and the discharge route(s) in the existing permit correct? ☐ Yes ☒ No If no, or a new or amendment permit application, provide an accurate description of the point of discharge and the discharge route to the nearest classified segment as defined in 30 TAC Chapter 307: The discharge route is via a pipe to an unnamed tributary; thence to Mankins Branch; thence to San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River, Segment 1248 of the Brazos River Basin.

City nearest the outfall(s): Georgetown County in which the outfalls(s) is/are located: Williamson Outfall Latitude: 30.59828 Longitude: -97.63385 C. Is or will the treated wastewater discharge to a city, county, or state highway right-of-way, or a flood control district drainage ditch? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, indicate by a check mark if: ☐ Authorization granted ☐ Authorization pending For new and amendment applications, provide copies of letters that show proof of contact and the approval letter upon receipt.

00010 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 9 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment: Click here to enter text. D. For all applications involving an average daily discharge of 5 MGD or more, provide the names of all counties located within 100 statute miles downstream of the point(s) of discharge. N/A

Section 11. TLAP Disposal Information (Instructions Page 36) A. For TLAPs, is the location of the effluent disposal site in the existing permit accurate? ☐ Yes ☐ No Not Applicable. If no, or a new or amendment permit application, provide an accurate description of the disposal site location:

B. City nearest the disposal site: Click here to enter text. C. County in which the disposal site is located: Click here to enter text. D. Disposal Site Latitude: Click here to enter text. Longitude: Click here to enter text. E. For TLAPs, describe the routing of effluent from the treatment facility to the disposal site: Click here to enter text.

F. For TLAPs, please identify the nearest watercourse to the disposal site to which rainfall runoff might flow if not contained: Click here to enter text.

Section 12. Miscellaneous Information (Instructions Page 37) A. Is the facility located on or does the treated effluent cross American Indian Land? ☐ Yes ☒ No B. If the existing permit contains an onsite sludge disposal authorization, is the location of the sewage sludge disposal site in the existing permit accurate? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Not Applicable

If No, or if a new onsite sludge disposal authorization is being requested in this permit

00011 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 10 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 application, provide an accurate location description of the sewage sludge disposal site.

Click here to enter text.

C. Did any person formerly employed by the TCEQ represent your company and get paid for service regarding this application? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, list each person formerly employed by the TCEQ who represented your company and was paid for service regarding the application: Click here to enter text.

D. Do you owe any fees to the TCEQ? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, provide the following information: Account number: Click here to enter text. Amount past due: Click here to enter text. E. Do you owe any penalties to the TCEQ? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, please provide the following information: Enforcement order number: Click here to enter text. Amount past due:

Section 13. Attachments (Instructions Page 38) Indicate which attachments are included with the Administrative Report. Check all that apply: ☐ Lease agreement or deed recorded easement, if the land where the treatment facility is located or the effluent disposal site are not owned by the applicant or co-applicant. ☒ Original full-size USGS Topographic Map with the following information: • Applicant's property boundary See Attachment B. • Treatment facility boundary • Labeled point of discharge for each discharge point (TPDES only) • Highlighted discharge route for each discharge point (TPDES only) • Onsite sewage sludge disposal site (if applicable) • Effluent disposal site boundaries (TLAP only) • New and future construction (if applicable) • 1 mile radius information • 3 miles downstream information (TPDES only)

00012 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 11 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 • All ponds. ☐ Attachment 1 for Individuals as co-applicants ☒ Other Attachments. Please specify: Click here to enter text.

00013 TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 12 of 21

AIRW - EXH. 4 00014

AIRW - EXH. 4 DOMESTIC ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 1.1 The following information is required for new and amendment applications.

Section 1. Affected Landowner Information (Instructions Page 41) A. Indicate by a check mark that the landowners map or drawing, with scale, includes the following information, as applicable: See Attachment C. ☒ The applicant’s property boundaries ☒ The facility site boundaries within the applicant’s property boundaries ☒ The distance the buffer zone falls into adjacent properties and the property boundaries of the landowners located within the buffer zone ☒ The property boundaries of all landowners surrounding the applicant’s property (Note: if the application is a major amendment for a lignite mine, the map must include the property boundaries of all landowners adjacent to the new facility (ponds).) ☒ The point(s) of discharge and highlighted discharge route(s) clearly shown for one mile downstream ☒ The property boundaries of the landowners located on both sides of the discharge route for one full stream mile downstream of the point of discharge ☐ The property boundaries of the landowners along the watercourse for a one-half mile radius from the point of discharge if the point of discharge is into a lake, bay, estuary, or affected by tides ☐ The boundaries of the effluent disposal site (for example, irrigation area or subsurface drainfield site) and all evaporation/holding ponds within the applicant’s property ☐ The property boundaries of all landowners surrounding the effluent disposal site ☐ The boundaries of the sludge land application site (for land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use) and the property boundaries of landowners surrounding the applicant’s property boundaries where the sewage sludge land application site is located ☐ The property boundaries of landowners within one-half mile in all directions from the applicant’s property boundaries where the sewage sludge disposal site (for example, sludge surface disposal site or sludge monofill) is located B. ☒ Indicate by a check mark that a separate list with the landowners’ names and mailing addresses cross-referenced to the landowner’s map has been provided.

C. Indicate by a check mark in which format the landowners list is submitted: ☐ Readable/Writeable CD ☒ Four sets of labels D. Provide the source of the landowners’ names and mailing addresses: Williamson County Appraisal District

E. As required by Texas Water Code § 5.115, is any permanent school fund land affected by this application?

☐ Yes ☒ No

TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 14 of 21 00015 AIRW - EXH. 4 If yes, provide the location and foreseeable impacts and effects this application has on the land(s):

Section 2. Original Photographs (Instructions Page 44) Provide original ground level photographs. Indicate with checkmarks that the following information is provided. See Attachment D. ☒ At least one original photograph of the new or expanded treatment unit location ☒ At least two photographs of the existing/proposed point of discharge and as much area downstream (photo 1) and upstream (photo 2) as can be captured. If the discharge is to an open water body (e.g., lake, bay), the point of discharge should be in the right or left edge of each photograph showing the open water and with as much area on each respective side of the discharge as can be captured. ☐ At least one photograph of the existing/proposed effluent disposal site ☒ A plot plan or map showing the location and direction of each photograph

Section 3. Buffer Zone Map (Instructions Page 44)

A. Buffer zone map. Provide a buffer zone map on 8.5 x 11-inch paper with all of the following information. The applicant’s property line and the buffer zone line may be distinguished by using dashes or symbols and appropriate labels.

• The applicant's property boundary; See Attachment E. • The required buffer zone; and • Each treatment unit; and • The distance from each treatment unit to the property boundaries.

B. Buffer zone compliance method. Indicate how the buffer zone requirements will be met. Check all that apply.

☒ Ownership

☐ Restrictive easement ☐ Nuisance odor control ☐ Variance C. Unsuitable site characteristics. Does the facility comply with the requirements regarding unsuitable site characteristic found in 30 TAC § 309.13(a) through (d)?

☒ Yes ☐ No

TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 15 of 21 00016 AIRW - EXH. 4 Supplemental Permit Information Form

WES 20-001 00017

AIRW - EXH. 4 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SUPPLEMENTAL PERMIT INFORMATION FORM (SPIF) FOR AGENCIES REVIEWING DOMESTIC TPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT APPLICATIONS

TCEQ USE ONLY: Application type: Renewal Major Amendment Minor Amendment New County: Segment Number: Admin Complete Date: Agency Receiving SPIF: Texas Historical Commission U.S. Fish and Wildlife Texas Parks and Wildlife Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

This form applies to TPDES permit applications only. (Instructions, Page 53) The SPIF must be completed as a separate document. The TCEQ will mail a copy of the SPIF to each agency as required by the TCEQ agreement with EPA. If any of the items are not completely addressed or further information is needed, you will be contacted to provide the information before the permit is issued. Each item must be completely addressed. Do not refer to a response of any item in the permit application form. Each attachment must be provided with this form separately from the administrative report of the application. The application will not be declared administratively complete without this form being completed in its entirety including all attachments. The following applies to all applications: 1. Permittee: AIRW2017-7, LP

Permit No. WQ00 Click here to enter text. EPA ID No. TX Click here to enter text.

Address of the project (or a location description that includes street/highway, city/vicinity, and county): The proposed water resource reclamation facility is located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Rockride Lane (County Road 110) and Westinghouse Road (County Road 111) in Williamson County, Texas.

TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 16 of 21 00018 AIRW - EXH. 4 Provide the name, address, phone and fax number of an individual that can be contacted to answer specific questions about the property.

Prefix (Mr., Ms., Miss): Mr. First and Last Name: Matthew Hiles Credential (P.E, P.G., Ph.D., etc.): Click here to enter text. Title: Vice President Mailing Address: 2505 N. State Highway 360, Ste 800 City, State, Zip Code: Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 Phone No.: (972) 471-8700 Ext.: Click here to enter text. Fax No.: Click here to enter text. E-mail Address: matth@liveW3.com

2. List the county in which the facility is located: Williamson 3. If the property is publicly owned and the owner is different than the permittee/applicant, please list the owner of the property. The property is not publicly owned.

4. Provide a description of the effluent discharge route. The discharge route must follow the flow of effluent from the point of discharge to the nearest major watercourse (from the point of discharge to a classified segment as defined in 30 TAC Chapter 307). If known, please identify the classified segment number. The discharge route is to an unnamed tributary; thence to Mankins Branch; thence to San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River, Segment 1248 of the Brazos River Basin.

5. Please provide a separate 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map with the project boundaries plotted and a general location map showing the project area. Please highlight the discharge route from the point of discharge for a distance of one mile downstream. (This map is required in addition to the map in the administrative report).

See Attachments SPIF-1 and SPIF-2.

Provide original photographs of any structures 50 years or older on the property.

Does your project involve any of the following? Check all that apply.

☒ Proposed access roads, utility lines, construction easements

☐ Visual effects that could damage or detract from a historic property’s integrity

☐ Vibration effects during construction or as a result of project design

☐ Additional phases of development that are planned for the future

TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 17 of 21 00019 AIRW - EXH. 4 ☐ Sealing caves, fractures, sinkholes, other karst features

☐ Disturbance of vegetation or wetlands

6. List proposed construction impact (surface acres to be impacted, depth of excavation, sealing of caves, or other karst features): The estimated depth of excavation is 15 to 20 feet for an 8-foot diameter lift station wet well. Treatment plant facilities will be above-grade. Some subgrade compaction may be needed following receipt of geotechnical report, but excavation will generally be limited to the lift station, piping connecting treatment units, shallow buried electrical duct banks, and the outfall pipe. There are no known caves.

7. Describe existing disturbances, vegetation, and land use: The existing land use is for agricultural purposes.

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS APPLY ONLY TO APPLICATIONS FOR NEW TPDES PERMITS AND MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO TPDES PERMITS 8. List construction dates of all buildings and structures on the property: No buildings or structures currently exist on property.

9. Provide a brief history of the property, and name of the architect/builder, if known. The history of the property is not known. It is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site does not have any structures built on it.

TCEQ-10053 (06/25/2018) Municipal Wastewater Application Administrative Report Page 18 of 21 00020 AIRW - EXH. 4 Supplemental Permit Information Form • SPIF-1 General Location Map • SPIF-2 USGS Map

WES 20-001 00021

AIRW - EXH. 4 Amarillo

NOT TO SCALE

Lubbock

Fort Worth Dallas Project El Paso Location

Austin Houston San Antonio

Corpus Christi

SPIF-1 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION 00022

GENERAL LOCATION MAP AIRW - EXH. 4 00023

AIRW - EXH. 4 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DOMESTIC WASTEWATER PERMIT APPLICATION

DOMESTIC TECHNICAL REPORT 1.0 The Following Is Required For All Applications Renewal, New, And Amendment

Section 1. Permitted or Proposed Flows (Instructions Page 51) A. Existing/Interim I Phase Design Flow (MGD): Click here to enter text. 2-Hr Peak Flow (MGD): Click here to enter text. Estimated construction start date: Click here to enter text. Estimated waste disposal start date: Click here to enter text.

B. Interim II Phase Design Flow (MGD): Click here to enter text. 2-Hr Peak Flow (MGD): Click here to enter text. Estimated construction start date: Click here to enter text. Estimated waste disposal start date: Click here to enter text.

C. Final Phase Design Flow (MGD): 0.20 2-Hr Peak Flow (MGD): 0.80 Estimated construction start date: January 2021 Estimated waste disposal start date: October 2021

D. Current operating phase: N/A Provide the startup date of the facility: N/A

Section 2. Treatment Process (Instructions Page 51) A. Treatment process description Provide a detailed description of the treatment process. Include the type of

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 1 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00024

AIRW - EXH. 4 treatment plant, mode of operation, and all treatment units. Start with the plant’s head works and finish with the point of discharge. Include all sludge processing and drying units. If more than one phase exists or is proposed in the permit, a description of each phase must be provided. Process description: The proposed Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility is an activated sludge with nitrification process plant operated in the extended aeration mode. The wastewater treatment plant will be a package plant with two aeration basins, a secondary clarifier, chlorine contact basin, effluent filter and an aerated sludge holding/thickening tank.

Port or pipe diameter at the discharge point, in inches: 12

B. Treatment Units In Table 1.0(1), provide the treatment unit type, the number of units, and dimensions (length, width, depth) of each treatment unit, accounting for all phases of operation.

Table 1.0(1) – Treatment Units Treatment Unit Type Number of Dimensions (L x W x D) Units Aeration Basin 2 41’ x 14’ x 12.5’ SWD Secondary Clarifier 1 32’ dia. x 10’ SWD Chlorine Contact Basin 1 14’ x 12’x 9’ SWD Effluent Filter 1 -- Aerated Sludge 1 100,000 gallons Holding/Thickening Tank

C. Process flow diagrams Provide flow diagrams for the existing facilities and each proposed phase of construction. Attachment: F

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 2 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00025

AIRW - EXH. 4 Section 3. Site Drawing (Instructions Page 52) Provide a site drawing for the facility that shows the following: • The boundaries of the treatment facility; • The boundaries of the area served by the treatment facility; • If land disposal of effluent, the boundaries of the disposal site and all storage/holding ponds; and • If sludge disposal is authorized in the permit, the boundaries of the land application or disposal site.

Attachment: G Provide the name and a description of the area served by the treatment facility. The treatment facility will serve the residents of The Mansions of Georgetown III development.

Section 4. Unbuilt Phases (Instructions Page 52) Is the application for a renewal of a permit that contains an unbuilt phase or phases? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, does the existing permit contain a phase that has not been constructed within five years of being authorized by the TCEQ? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide a detailed discussion regarding the continued need for the unbuilt phase. Failure to provide sufficient justification may result in the Executive Director recommending denial of the unbuilt phase or phases. Click here to enter text.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 3 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00026

AIRW - EXH. 4 Section 5. Closure Plans (Instructions Page 53) Have any treatment units been taken out of service permanently, or will any units be taken out of service in the next five years? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, was a closure plan submitted to the TCEQ? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide a brief description of the closure and the date of plan approval.

Section 6. Permit Specific Requirements (Instructions Page 53)

For applicants with an existing permit, check the Other Requirements or Special Provisions of the permit.

A. Summary transmittal Have plans and specifications been approved for the existing facilities and each proposed phase? Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A – This is a new permit.

If yes, provide the date(s) of approval for each phase: Click here to enter text. Provide information, including dates, on any actions taken to meet a requirement or provision pertaining to the submission of a summary transmittal letter. Provide a copy of an approval letter from the TCEQ, if applicable.

B. Buffer zones Have the buffer zone requirements been met? Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A – This is a new permit. Provide information below, including dates, on any actions taken to meet the conditions of the buffer zone. If available, provide any new documentation

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 4 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00027

AIRW - EXH. 4 relevant to maintaining the buffer zones. Click here to enter text.

C. Other actions required by the current permit Does the Other Requirements or Special Provisions section in the existing permit require submission of any other information or other required actions? Examples include Notification of Completion, progress reports, soil monitoring data, etc. N/A – This is a new permit. Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide information below on the status of any actions taken to meet the conditions of an Other Requirement or Special Provision.

D. Grit and grease treatment

1. Acceptance of grit and grease waste Does the facility have a grit and/or grease processing facility onsite that treats and decants or accepts transported loads of grit and grease waste that are discharged directly to the wastewater treatment plant prior to any treatment? Yes ☐ No ☒ If No, stop here and continue with Subsection E. Stormwater Management.

2. Grit and grease processing Describe below how the grit and grease waste is treated at the facility. In your description, include how and where the grit and grease is introduced to the treatment works and how it is separated or processed. Provide a flow diagram showing how grit and grease is processed at the facility.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 5 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00028

AIRW - EXH. 4 Click here to enter text.

3. Grit disposal Does the facility have a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) registration or permit for grit disposal? Yes ☐ No ☐ If No, contact the TCEQ Municipal Solid Waste team at 512-239-0000. Note: A registration or permit is required for grit disposal. Grit shall not be combined with treatment plant sludge. See the instruction booklet for additional information on grit disposal requirements and restrictions.

Describe the method of grit disposal. Click here to enter text.

4. Grease and decanted liquid disposal Note: A registration or permit is required for grease disposal. Grease shall not be combined with treatment plant sludge. For more information, contact the TCEQ Municipal Solid Waste team at 512-239-0000.

Describe how the decant and grease are treated and disposed of after grit separation. Click here to enter text.

E. Stormwater management

1. Applicability Does the facility have a design flow of 1.0 MGD or greater in any phase? Yes ☐ No ☒ Does the facility have an approved pretreatment program, under 40 CFR Part 403?

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 6 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00029

AIRW - EXH. 4 Yes ☐ No ☒ If no to both of the above, then skip to Subsection F, Other Wastes Received.

2. MSGP coverage Is the stormwater runoff from the WWTP and dedicated lands for sewage disposal currently permitted under the TPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), TXR050000? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, please provide MSGP Authorization Number and skip to Subsection F, Other Wastes Received: TXR05 Click here to enter text. or TXRNE Click here to enter text. If no, do you intend to seek coverage under TXR050000? Yes ☐ No ☐

3. Conditional exclusion Alternatively, do you intend to apply for a conditional exclusion from permitting based TXR050000 (Multi Sector General Permit) Part II B.2 or TXR050000 (Multi Sector General Permit) Part V, Sector T 3(b)? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, please explain below then proceed to Subsection F, Other Wastes Received: Click here to enter text.

4. Existing coverage in individual permit Is your stormwater discharge currently permitted through this individual TPDES or TLAP permit? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide a description of stormwater runoff management practices at the site that are authorized in the wastewater permit then skip to Subsection F, Other Wastes Received.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 7 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00030

AIRW - EXH. 4 Click here to enter text.

5. Zero stormwater discharge Do you intend to have no discharge of stormwater via use of evaporation or other means? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, explain below then skip to Subsection F. Other Wastes Received. Click here to enter text.

Note: If there is a potential to discharge any stormwater to surface water in the state as the result of any storm event, then permit coverage is required under the MSGP or an individual discharge permit. This requirement applies to all areas of facilities with treatment plants or systems that treat, store, recycle, or reclaim domestic sewage, wastewater or sewage sludge (including dedicated lands for sewage sludge disposal located within the onsite property boundaries) that meet the applicability criteria of above. You have the option of obtaining coverage under the MSGP for direct discharges, (recommended), or obtaining coverage under this individual permit.

6. Request for coverage in individual permit Are you requesting coverage of stormwater discharges associated with your treatment plant under this individual permit? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide a description of stormwater runoff management practices at the site for which you are requesting authorization in this individual wastewater permit and describe whether you intend to comingle this discharge with your treated effluent or discharge it via a separate dedicated stormwater outfall. Please also indicate if you intend to divert stormwater to the treatment plant headworks and indirectly discharge it to water in the state.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 8 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00031

AIRW - EXH. 4 Click here to enter text.

Note: Direct stormwater discharges to waters in the state authorized through this individual permit will require the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and will be subject to additional monitoring and reporting requirements. Indirect discharges of stormwater via headworks recycling will require compliance with all individual permit requirements including 2-hour peak flow limitations. All stormwater discharge authorization requests will require additional information during the technical review of your application.

F. Discharges to the Lake Houston Watershed Does the facility discharge in the Lake Houston watershed? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, a Sewage Sludge Solids Management Plan is required. See Example 5 in the instructions.

G. Other wastes received including sludge from other WWTPs and septic waste

1. Acceptance of sludge from other WWTPs Does the facility accept or will it accept sludge from other treatment plants at the facility site? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, attach sewage sludge solids management plan. See Example 5 of the instructions.

In addition, provide the date that the plant started accepting sludge or is anticipated to start accepting sludge, an estimate of monthly sludge acceptance (gallons or millions of gallons), an estimate of the BOD5 concentration of the sludge, and the design BOD5 concentration of the influent from the collection system. Also note if this information has or has not changed since the last permit action. Click here to enter text.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 9 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00032

AIRW - EXH. 4 Note: Permits that accept sludge from other wastewater treatment plants may be required to have influent flow and organic loading monitoring.

2. Acceptance of septic waste Is the facility accepting or will it accept septic waste? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, does the facility have a Type V processing unit? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, does the unit have a Municipal Solid Waste permit? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes to any of the above, provide a the date that the plant started accepting septic waste, or is anticipated to start accepting septic waste, an estimate of monthly septic waste acceptance (gallons or millions of gallons), an estimate of the BOD5 concentration of the septic waste, and the design BOD5 concentration of the influent from the collection system. Also note if this information has or has not changed since the last permit action. Click here to enter text.

Note: Permits that accept sludge from other wastewater treatment plants may be required to have influent flow and organic loading monitoring.

3. Acceptance of other wastes (not including septic, grease, grit, or RCRA, CERCLA or as discharged by IUs listed in Worksheet 6) Is the facility accepting or will it accept wastes that are not domestic in nature excluding the categories listed above? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, provide the date that the plant started accepting the waste, an estimate how much waste is accepted on a monthly basis (gallons or millions of gallons), a description of the entities generating the waste, and any distinguishing chemical or other physical characteristic of the waste. Also note if this information has or has not changed since the last permit action.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 10 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00033

AIRW - EXH. 4 Click here to enter text.

Section 7. Pollutant Analysis of Treated Effluent (Instructions Page 58) Is the facility in operation? Yes ☐ No ☒ If no, this section is not applicable. Proceed to Section 8. If yes, provide effluent analysis data for the listed pollutants. Wastewater treatment facilities complete Table 1.0(2). Water treatment facilities discharging filter backwash water, complete Table 1.0(3).

Note: The sample date must be within 1 year of application submission.

Table 1.0(2) - Pollutant Analysis for Wastewater Treatment Facilities Average Max No. of Sample Sample Pollutant Conc. Conc. Samples Type Date/Time

CBOD5, mg/l

Total Suspended Solids, mg/l

Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/l

Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/l

Sulfate, mg/l

Chloride, mg/l

Total Phosphorus, mg/l

pH, standard units

Dissolved Oxygen*, mg/l

Chlorine Residual, mg/l

E.coli (CFU/100ml) freshwater

Entercocci (CFU/100ml)

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 11 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00034

AIRW - EXH. 4 Average Max No. of Sample Sample Pollutant Conc. Conc. Samples Type Date/Time saltwater

Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l

Electrical Conductivity, µmohs/cm, †

Oil & Grease, mg/l

Alkalinity (CaCO3)*, mg/l

*TPDES permits only †TLAP permits only

Table 1.0(3) - Pollutant Analysis for Water Treatment Facilities Average Max No. of Sample Sample Pollutant Conc. Conc. Samples Type Date/Time Total Suspended Solids, mg/l

Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l

pH, standard units

Fluoride, mg/l

Aluminum, mg/l

Alkalinity (CaCO3), mg/l

Section 8. Facility Operator (Instructions Page 60) Facility Operator Name: AQUA Operations OC0000142

Facility Operator's License Classification and Level: --

Facility Operator's License Number: --

Section 9. Sewage Sludge Management and Disposal (Instructions Page 60)

A. Sludge disposal method Identify the current or anticipated sludge disposal method or methods from the

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 12 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00035

AIRW - EXH. 4 following list. Check all that apply.

☒ Permitted landfill

☐ Permitted or Registered land application site for beneficial use

☐ Land application for beneficial use authorized in the wastewater permit

☐ Permitted sludge processing facility

☐ Marketing and distribution as authorized in the wastewater permit

☐ Composting as authorized in the wastewater permit

☐ Permitted surface disposal site (sludge monofill)

☐ Surface disposal site (sludge monofill) authorized in the wastewater permit

☐ Transported to another permitted wastewater treatment plant or permitted sludge processing facility. If you selected this method, a written statement or contractual agreement from the wastewater treatment plant or permitted sludge processing facility accepting the sludge must be included with this application. ☐ Other: Click here to enter text.

B. Sludge disposal site Disposal site name: Austin Wastewater Processing Facility TCEQ permit or registration number: 2384 County where disposal site is located: Travis

C. Sludge transportation method Method of transportation (truck, train, pipe, other): truck Name of the hauler: Wastewater Transport Services LLC Hauler registration number: 24343 Sludge is transported as a: Liquid ☐ semi-liquid ☒ semi-solid ☐ solid ☐

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 13 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00036

AIRW - EXH. 4 Section 10. Permit Authorization for Sewage Sludge Disposal (Instructions Page 60)

A. Beneficial use authorization Does the existing permit include authorization for land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, are you requesting to continue this authorization to land apply sewage sludge for beneficial use? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, is the completed Application for Permit for Beneficial Land Use of Sewage Sludge (TCEQ Form No. 10451) attached to this permit application (see the instructions for details)? Yes ☐ No ☐

B. Sludge processing authorization Does the existing permit include authorization for any of the following sludge processing, storage or disposal options? Sludge Composting Yes ☐ No ☒

Marketing and Distribution of sludge Yes ☐ No ☒

Sludge Surface Disposal or Sludge Monofill Yes ☐ No ☒

Temporary storage in sludge lagoons Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes to any of the above sludge options and the applicant is requesting to continue this authorization, is the completed Domestic Wastewater Permit Application: Sewage Sludge Technical Report (TCEQ Form No. 10056) attached to this permit application? Yes ☐ No ☐

Section 11. Sewage Sludge Lagoons (Instructions Page 61) Does this facility include sewage sludge lagoons? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, complete the remainder of this section. If no, proceed to Section 12.

A. Location information The following maps are required to be submitted as part of the application. For each map, provide the Attachment Number.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 14 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00037

AIRW - EXH. 4 • Original General Highway (County) Map: Attachment: Click here to enter text. • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Map: Attachment: Click here to enter text. • Federal Emergency Management Map: Attachment: Click here to enter text. • Site map: Attachment: Click here to enter text. Discuss in a description if any of the following exist within the lagoon area. Check all that apply.

☐ Overlap a designated 100-year frequency flood plain ☐ Soils with flooding classification ☐ Overlap an unstable area ☐ Wetlands ☐ Located less than 60 meters from a fault

☐ None of the above Attachment: Click here to enter text.

If a portion of the lagoon(s) is located within the 100-year frequency flood plain, provide the protective measures to be utilized including type and size of protective structures: Click here to enter text.

B. Temporary storage information Provide the results for the pollutant screening of sludge lagoons. These results are in addition to pollutant results in Section 7 of Technical Report 1.0. Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/kg: Click here to enter text. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/kg: Click here to enter text. Total Nitrogen (=nitrate nitrogen + TKN), mg/kg: Click here to enter text. Phosphorus, mg/kg: Click here to enter text.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 15 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00038

AIRW - EXH. 4 Potassium, mg/kg: Click here to enter text. pH, standard units: Click here to enter text. Ammonia Nitrogen mg/kg: Click here to enter text. Arsenic: Click here to enter text. Cadmium: Click here to enter text. Chromium: Click here to enter text. Copper: Click here to enter text. Lead: Click here to enter text. Mercury: Click here to enter text. Molybdenum: Click here to enter text. Nickel: Click here to enter text. Selenium: Click here to enter text. Zinc: Click here to enter text. Total PCBs: Click here to enter text. Provide the following information: Volume and frequency of sludge to the lagoon(s): Click here to enter text. Total dry tons stored in the lagoons(s) per 365-day period: Click here to enter text. Total dry tons stored in the lagoons(s) over the life of the unit: Click here to enter text.

C. Liner information Does the active/proposed sludge lagoon(s) have a liner with a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-7 cm/sec? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, describe the liner below. Please note that a liner is required. Click here to enter text.

D. Site development plan Provide a detailed description of the methods used to deposit sludge in the

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 16 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00039

AIRW - EXH. 4 lagoon(s): Click here to enter text.

Attach the following documents to the application. • Plan view and cross-section of the sludge lagoon(s) Attachment: Click here to enter text. • Copy of the closure plan Attachment: Click here to enter text. • Copy of deed recordation for the site Attachment: Click here to enter text. • Size of the sludge lagoon(s) in surface acres and capacity in cubic feet and gallons Attachment: Click here to enter text. • Description of the method of controlling infiltration of groundwater and surface water from entering the site Attachment: Click here to enter text. • Procedures to prevent the occurrence of nuisance conditions Attachment: Click here to enter text.

E. Groundwater monitoring Is groundwater monitoring currently conducted at this site, or are any wells available for groundwater monitoring, or are groundwater monitoring data otherwise available for the sludge lagoon(s)? Yes ☐ No ☐ If groundwater monitoring data are available, provide a copy. Provide a profile of soil types encountered down to the groundwater table and the depth to the shallowest groundwater as a separate attachment.

Attachment: Click here to enter text.

Section 12. Authorizations/Compliance/Enforcement

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 17 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00040

AIRW - EXH. 4 (Instructions Page 63)

A. Additional authorizations Does the permittee have additional authorizations for this facility, such as reuse authorization, sludge permit, etc? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, provide the TCEQ authorization number and description of the authorization: Click here to enter text.

B. Permittee enforcement status Is the permittee currently under enforcement for this facility? Yes ☐ No ☒ Is the permittee required to meet an implementation schedule for compliance or enforcement? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes to either question, provide a brief summary of the enforcement, the implementation schedule, and the current status: Click here to enter text.

Section 13. RCRA/CERCLA Wastes (Instructions Page 63) A. RCRA hazardous wastes Has the facility received in the past three years, does it currently receive, or will it receive RCRA hazardous waste? Yes ☐ No ☒

B. Remediation activity wastewater Has the facility received in the past three years, does it currently receive, or will it receive CERCLA wastewater, RCRA remediation/corrective action wastewater or other remediation activity wastewater? Yes ☐ No ☒

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 18 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00041

AIRW - EXH. 4 C. Details about wastes received If yes to either Subsection A or B above, provide detailed information concerning these wastes with the application.

Attachment: Click here to enter text.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 19 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00042

AIRW - EXH. 4 00043

AIRW - EXH. 4 DOMESTIC TECHNICAL REPORT 1.1 The following is required for new and amendment applications

Section 1. Justification for Permit (Instructions Page 66)

A. Justification of permit need Provide a detailed discussion regarding the need for any phase(s) not currently permitted. Failure to provide sufficient justification may result in the Executive Director recommending denial of the proposed phase(s) or permit. Central Texas is a fast-growing area. The construction of 880 residential housing units in the proposed service is planned to be completed in the next two years. The proposed wastewater treatment facility will provide services to the residential population that is expected to average 2.5 persons per unit. The plant will be designed to support Type I reuse for irrigation throughout the development, minimizing potable water consumption.

B. Regionalization of facilities Provide the following information concerning the potential for regionalization of domestic wastewater treatment facilities:

1. Municipally incorporated areas If the applicant is a city, then Item 1 is not applicable. Proceed to Item 2 Utility CCN areas.

Is any portion of the proposed service area located in an incorporated city? Yes ☐ No ☒ Not Applicable ☐ If yes, within the city limits of: Click here to enter text. If yes, attach correspondence from the city.

Attachment: Click here to enter text.

If consent to provide service is available from the city, attach a justification for the proposed facility and a cost analysis of expenditures that includes the cost of connecting to the city versus the cost of the proposed facility or expansion attached.

Attachment: Click here to enter text.

2. Utility CCN areas TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 21 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00044

AIRW - EXH. 4 Is any portion of the proposed service area located inside another utility’s CCN area? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, attach a justification for the proposed facility and a cost analysis of expenditures that includes the cost of connecting to the CCN facilities versus the cost of the proposed facility or expansion.

Attachment: Click here to enter text.

3. Nearby WWTPs or collection systems Are there any domestic permitted wastewater treatment facilities or collection systems located within a three-mile radius of the proposed facility? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, attach a list of these facilities that includes the permittee’s name and permit number, and an area map showing the location of these facilities.

Attachment: H

If yes, attach copies of your certified letters to these facilities and their response letters concerning connection with their system.

Attachment: Click here to enter text.

Does a permitted domestic wastewater treatment facility or a collection system located within three (3) miles of the proposed facility currently have the capacity to accept or is willing to expand to accept the volume of wastewater proposed in this application? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, attach an analysis of expenditures required to connect to a permitted wastewater treatment facility or collection system located within 3 miles versus the cost of the proposed facility or expansion.

Attachment: Click here to enter text.

Section 2. Organic Loading (Instructions Page 67) Is this facility in operation? Yes ☐ No ☒

If no, proceed to Item B, Proposed Organic Loading.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 22 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00045

AIRW - EXH. 4 If yes, provide organic loading information in Item A, Current Organic Loading

A. Current organic loading Facility Design Flow (flow being requested in application): N/A

Average Influent Organic Strength or BOD5 Concentration in mg/l: N/A

Average Influent Loading (lbs/day = total average flow X average BOD5 conc. X 8.34): N/A

Provide the source of the average organic strength or BOD5 concentration. N/A

B. Proposed organic loading This table must be completed if this application is for a facility that is not in operation or if this application is to request an increased flow that will impact organic loading.

Table 1.1(1) – Design Organic Loading

Total Average Flow Influent BOD5 Source (MGD) Concentration (mg/l) Municipality

Subdivision 0.20 300

Trailer park – transient

Mobile home park

School with cafeteria and showers

School with cafeteria, no showers

Recreational park,

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 23 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00046

AIRW - EXH. 4 Total Average Flow Influent BOD5 Source (MGD) Concentration (mg/l) overnight use

Recreational park, day use

Office building or factory

Motel

Restaurant

Hospital

Nursing home

Other

TOTAL FLOW from all 0.20 sources

AVERAGE BOD5 from all 300 sources

Section 3. Proposed Effluent Quality and Disinfection (Instructions Page 68) A. Existing/Interim I Phase Design Effluent Quality Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day), mg/l: Click here to enter text. Total Suspended Solids, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Total Phosphorus, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Other: Click here to enter text.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 24 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00047

AIRW - EXH. 4 B. Interim II Phase Design Effluent Quality Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day), mg/l: Click here to enter text. Total Suspended Solids, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Total Phosphorus, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l: Click here to enter text. Other: Click here to enter text.

C. Final Phase Design Effluent Quality Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day), mg/l: 7 Total Suspended Solids, mg/l: 10 Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/l: 4 Total Phosphorus, mg/l: -- Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l: 4 Other: Click here to enter text.

D. Disinfection Method

Identify the proposed method of disinfection. ☒ Chlorine: 1.0 mg/l after 20 minutes detention time at peak flow Dechlorination process: Click here to enter text. ☐ Ultraviolet Light: Click here to enter text. seconds contact time at peak flow ☐ Other: Click here to enter text.

Section 4. Design Calculations (Instructions Page 68) Attach design calculations and plant features for each proposed phase. Example 4 of the instructions includes sample design calculations and plant features.

Attachment: I

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 25 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00048

AIRW - EXH. 4 Section 5. Facility Site (Instructions Page 68) A. 100-year floodplain Will the proposed facilities be located above the 100-year frequency flood level? Yes ☒ No ☐ If no, describe measures used to protect the facility during a flood event. Include a site map showing the location of the treatment plant within the 100-year frequency flood level. If applicable, provide the size and types of protective structures. Click here to enter text.

Provide the source(s) used to determine 100-year frequency flood plain. FIRM map 48491C0485F

For a new or expansion of a facility, will a wetland or part of a wetland be filled? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, has the applicant applied for a US Corps of Engineers 404 Dredge and Fill Permit? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide the permit number: Click here to enter text. If no, provide the approximate date you anticipate submitting your application to the Corps: Click here to enter text.

B. Wind rose Attach a wind rose. Attachment: J

Section 6. Permit Authorization for Sewage Sludge Disposal (Instructions Page 69) A. Beneficial use authorization Are you requesting to include authorization to land apply sewage sludge for beneficial use on property located adjacent to the wastewater treatment facility under the wastewater permit?

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 26 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00049

AIRW - EXH. 4 Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, attach the completed Application for Permit for Beneficial Land Use of Sewage Sludge (TCEQ Form No. 10451) Attachment: Click here to enter text.

B. Sludge processing authorization Identify the sludge processing, storage or disposal options that will be conducted at the wastewater treatment facility: ☐ Sludge Composting ☐ Marketing and Distribution of sludge ☐ Sludge Surface Disposal or Sludge Monofill If any of the above sludge options are selected, attach a completed DOMESTIC WASTEWATER PERMIT APPLICATION: SEWAGE SLUDGE TECHNICAL REPORT (TCEQ Form No. 10056). Attachment: Click here to enter text.

Section 7. Sewage Sludge Solids Management Plan (Instructions Page 69) Attach a solids management plan to the application. Attachment: K The sewage sludge solids management plan must contain the following information: • Treatment units and processes dimensions and capacities • Solids generated at 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent of design flow • Mixed liquor suspended solids operating range at design and projected actual flow • Quantity of solids to be removed and a schedule for solids removal • Identification and ownership of the ultimate sludge disposal site • For facultative lagoons, design life calculations, monitoring well locations and depths, and the ultimate disposal method for the sludge from the facultative lagoon

An example of a sewage sludge solids management plan has been included as Example 5 of the instructions.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 27 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00050

AIRW - EXH. 4 DOMESTIC TECHNICAL REPORT WORKSHEET 2.0 RECEIVING WATERS The following is required for all TPDES permit applications

Section 1. Domestic Drinking Water Supply (Instructions Page 73) Is there a surface water intake for domestic drinking water supply located within 5 miles downstream from the point or proposed point of discharge? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, provide the following: Owner of the drinking water supply: Click here to enter text. Distance and direction to the intake: Click here to enter text. Attach a USGS map that identifies the location of the intake. Attachment: Click here to enter text.

Section 2. Discharge into Tidally Affected Waters (Instructions Page 73) Does the facility discharge into tidally affected waters?

Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, complete the remainder of this section. If no, proceed to Section 3.

A. Receiving water outfall Width of the receiving water at the outfall, in feet: Click here to enter text.

B. Oyster waters Are there oyster waters in the vicinity of the discharge? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide the distance and direction from outfall(s). Click here to enter text.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 28 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00051

AIRW - EXH. 4 C. Sea grasses Are there any sea grasses within the vicinity of the point of discharge? Yes ☐ No ☐ If yes, provide the distance and direction from the outfall(s). Click here to enter text.

Section 3. Classified Segments (Instructions Page 73) Is the discharge directly into (or within 300 feet of) a classified segment? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, this Worksheet is complete. If no, complete Sections 4 and 5 of this Worksheet.

Section 4. Description of Immediate Receiving Waters (Instructions Page 75) Name of the immediate receiving waters: unnamed tributary

A. Receiving water type Identify the appropriate description of the receiving waters. ☒ Stream

☐ Freshwater Swamp or Marsh

☐ Lake or Pond

Surface area, in acres: Click here to enter text.

Average depth of the entire water body, in feet: Click here to enter text.

Average depth of water body within a 500-foot radius of discharge point, in feet: Click here to enter text. ☐ Man-made Channel or Ditch

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 29 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00052

AIRW - EXH. 4 ☐ Open Bay

☐ Tidal Stream, Bayou, or Marsh

☐ Other, specify: Click here to enter text.

B. Flow characteristics If a stream, man-made channel or ditch was checked above, provide the following. For existing discharges, check one of the following that best characterizes the area upstream of the discharge. For new discharges, characterize the area downstream of the discharge (check one). ☒ Intermittent - dry for at least one week during most years

☐ Intermittent with Perennial Pools - enduring pools with sufficient habitat to maintain significant aquatic life uses ☐ Perennial - normally flowing

Check the method used to characterize the area upstream (or downstream for new dischargers). ☐ USGS flow records

☐ Historical observation by adjacent landowners

☐ Personal observation

☒ Other, specify: USGS map and aerial photos

C. Downstream perennial confluences List the names of all perennial streams that join the receiving water within three miles downstream of the discharge point. None

D. Downstream characteristics Do the receiving water characteristics change within three miles downstream of the discharge (e.g., natural or man-made dams, ponds, reservoirs, etc.)? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, discuss how.

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 30 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00053

AIRW - EXH. 4 There are three small ponds downstream of the proposed discharge location. The ponds are approximately 800 feet, half a mile, and one mile downstream of the discharge point.

E. Normal dry weather characteristics Provide general observations of the water body during normal dry weather conditions. Click here to enter text.

Date and time of observation: Click here to enter text. Was the water body influenced by stormwater runoff during observations?

Yes ☐ No ☐

Section 5. General Characteristics of the Waterbody (Instructions Page 74)

A. Upstream influences Is the immediate receiving water upstream of the discharge or proposed discharge site influenced by any of the following? Check all that apply.

☐ Oil field activities ☐ Urban runoff ☐ Upstream discharges ☐ Agricultural runoff

☐ Septic tanks ☒ Other(s), specify The unnamed tributary is only influenced by stormwater runoff.

B. Waterbody uses Observed or evidences of the following uses. Check all that apply.

☐ Livestock watering ☐ Contact recreation

☐ Irrigation withdrawal ☐ Non-contact recreation

☐ Fishing ☐ Navigation

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 31 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00054

AIRW - EXH. 4 ☐ Domestic water supply ☐ Industrial water supply

☐ Park activities ☐ Other(s), specify Click here to enter text.

C. Waterbody aesthetics Check one of the following that best describes the aesthetics of the receiving water and the surrounding area. ☐ Wilderness: outstanding natural beauty; usually wooded or unpastured area; water clarity exceptional

☐ Natural Area: trees and/or native vegetation; some development evident (from fields, pastures, dwellings); water clarity discolored

☒ Common Setting: not offensive; developed but uncluttered; water may be colored or turbid

☐ Offensive: stream does not enhance aesthetics; cluttered; highly developed; dumping areas; water discolored

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 32 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports 00055

AIRW - EXH. 4 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION

ATTACHMENT REFERENCE A. Core Data Form Admin Report 1.0, Section 3.C B. USGS Map Admin Report 1.0, Section 13 C. Affected Landowner Information Admin Report 1.1, Section 1 D. Original Photographs Admin Report 1.1, Section 2 E. Buffer Zone Map Admin Report 1.1, Section 3 F. Process Flow Diagram Tech Report 1.0, Section 2.C G. Site Drawing Tech Report 1.0, Section 3 H. Nearby Collection System Tech Report 1.1, Section 1.B.3 I. Design Calculation and Plant Features Tech Report 1.1, Section 4 J. Windrose Tech Report 1.1, Section 5.B K. Sewage Sludge Solids Management Plan Tech Report 1.1, Section 7

WES 20-001 00056

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment A Core Data Form Admin Report 1.0, Section 3.C

WES 20-001 00057

AIRW - EXH. 4 TCEQ Use Only

TCEQ Core Data Form For detailed instructions regarding completion of this form, please read the Core Data Form Instructions or call 512-239-5175. SECTION I: General Information 1. Reason for Submission (If other is checked please describe in space provided.) New Permit, Registration or Authorization (Core Data Form should be submitted with the program application.) Renewal (Core Data Form should be submitted with the renewal form) Other 2. Customer Reference Number (if issued) Follow this link to search 3. Regulated Entity Reference Number (if issued) for CN or RN numbers in CN 605607753 Central Registry** RN SECTION II: Customer Information 4. General Customer Information 5. Effective Date for Customer Information Updates (mm/dd/yyyy) 01/01/2018 New Customer Update to Customer Information Change in Regulated Entity Ownership Change in Legal Name (Verifiable with the Texas Secretary of State or Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts) The Customer Name submitted here may be updated automatically based on what is current and active with the Texas Secretary of State (SOS) or Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA). 6. Customer Legal Name (If an individual, print last name first: eg: Doe, John) If new Customer, enter previous Customer below:

AIRW 2017-7, LP 7. TX SOS/CPA Filing Number 8. TX State Tax ID (11 digits) 9. Federal Tax ID (9 digits) 10. DUNS Number (if applicable) 802720661 32063740933 XX-XXXXXXX 11. Type of Customer: Corporation Individual Partnership: General Limited

Government: City County Federal State Other Sole Proprietorship Other: 12. Number of Employees 13. Independently Owned and Operated? 0-20 21-100 101-250 251-500 501 and higher Yes No 14. Customer Role (Proposed or Actual) – as it relates to the Regulated Entity listed on this form. Please check one of the following: Owner Operator Owner & Operator Occupational Licensee Responsible Party Voluntary Cleanup Applicant Other:

2505 N. State Highway 360, Suite 800 15. Mailing Address: City Grand Prarie State TX ZIP 75050 ZIP + 4 16. Country Mailing Information (if outside USA) 17. E-Mail Address (if applicable) MattH@liveW3.com 18. Telephone Number 19. Extension or Code 20. Fax Number (if applicable) ( 972 ) 471-8700 ( ) -

SECTION III: Regulated Entity Information 21. General Regulated Entity Information (If ‘New Regulated Entity” is selected below this form should be accompanied by a permit application) New Regulated Entity Update to Regulated Entity Name Update to Regulated Entity Information The Regulated Entity Name submitted may be updated in order to meet TCEQ Agency Data Standards (removal of organizational endings such as Inc, LP, or LLC.) 22. Regulated Entity Name (Enter name of the site where the regulated action is taking place.) Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility 00058 TCEQ-10400 (04/15) Page 1 of 3 AIRW - EXH. 4 00059

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment B USGS Map Admin Report 1.0, Section 13

WES 20-001 00060

AIRW - EXH. 4 00061

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment C Affected Landowner Information Tech Report 1.1, Section 1

WES 20-001 00062

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT C AIRW2017-7, LP ROCKRIDE LANE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION AFFECTED LANDOWNER LIST

1 JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DIST 7 BAYS, IVA ELIZABETH PATTERSON PO BOX 455 1400 W SOMERS LN HUTTO, TX 78634-0455 AXTELL, TX 76624-1177

2 ORENDA EDUCATION 8 PATTERSON, SAMUEL GLENN 3360 WESTINGHOUSE RD 3651 COUNTY ROAD 110 GEORGETOWN, TX 78626 GEORGETOWN, TX 78626-7440

3 NELSON HOMESTEAD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD 9 WEBB, JIMMY C 3404 GLENVIEW AVE 2929 BELL GIN RD AUSTIN, TX 78703-1449 GEORGETOWN, TX 78626-7428

ANDERSON TRUST PO BOX 301 16233 CAMERON RD KYLE, TX 78640-0301 PFLUGERVILLE, TX 78660

5 722 GUNTER LLC 10700 PECAN PARK BLVD FOURTH FLOOR #400 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78230 AUSTIN, TX 78750-1227

MCKERLEY WACO, TX 76712-7561 GEORGETOWN, TX 78626

AIRW - EXH. 4 00064

AIRW - EXH. 4 00065 AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment D Original Photographs Admin Report 1.1, Section 2

WES 20-001 00066

AIRW - EXH. 4 Photograph 1. – Proposed site of facility looking southeast.

ATTACHMENT D.1 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION 00067 PHOTOGRAPHS

AIRW - EXH. 4 Photograph 2. – At outfall looking north, downstream. Photograph 2. – At outfall looking west, upstream. ATTACHMENT D.2 AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION PHOTOGRAPHS 00068

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment E Buffer Zone Map Admin Report 1.1, Section 3

WES 20-001 00069

AIRW - EXH. 4 00070

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment F Process Flow Diagram Tech Report 1.0, Section 2.C

WES 20-001 00071

AIRW - EXH. 4 ACTIVATED SLUDGE – EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS

Chlorine Aeration Secondary Contact Effluent Basin Clarifier Chamber Filtration Raw Influent Final Effluent

Supplemental Coagulation

Off-site Return Sludge Waste Sludge Disposal

Aerated Sludge Holding/ Thickening Tank

ATTACHMENT F AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 00072

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment G Site Drawing Tech Report 1.0, Section 3

WES 20-001 00073

AIRW - EXH. 4 00074 AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment H Nearby Collection System Tech Report 1.1, Section 1.B.3

WES 20-001 00075

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT H.1 AIRW2017-7, LP ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION NEARBY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

The proposed AIRW2017-7, LP Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility (WRRF) is located at the intersection of Westinghouse Road and Rockride Lane in Williamson County, Texas near Georgetown. The service area for the proposed Rockride Lane WRRF is outside the City of Georgetown city limits and out of the City of Round Rock sewer CCN boundaries. The nearby wastewater treatment systems are presents on the map below.

Proposed Service Area

Round Rock Sewer CCN

Nearby Wastewater Treatment System Area Map

Both wastewater collection systems are within three miles of the proposed treatment facility, therefore, staff with the City of Georgetown and the City of Round Rock were contacted. The correspondence from the cities that indicate service will not be available for the proposed service area are presented as Attachments I.2 and I.3.

I-1 00076

AIRW - EXH. 4 00077

AIRW - EXH. 4 00078

AIRW - EXH. 4 00079

AIRW - EXH. 4 00080

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment I Design Calculations Tech Report 1.1, Section 4

WES 20-001 00081

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility Activated Sludge Plant Design Features

Quantity and Quality of WW Number of Units 880 Persons/Unit 2.5 Total Population 2200 Flow Per Person 90 GPCD Average Flow 0.2 MGD Peaking Factor 4 Peak Flow 0.8 MGD BOD 300 mg/l NH3-N 30 mg/l

Aeration

O2 Req TCEQ eq. 1.63 lb O2/lb BOD O2 Req for BOD Ox 2.2 lb O2/lb BOD TCEQ States minimum for extended aeration is 2.2 O2 Req for NH3 Ox 4.6 lb O2/lb BOD Typically used. TCEQ does not state what to use.

Atmospheric Pressure Calcs Temp 85 F Temp 29.4 C Elevation 815 feet Elevation 0.25 km Psite 0.97 atm Psite 29.0 in Hg Pstd 29.92 in Hg

AOR/SOR Calcs C* DO Conc. @ Sea Level & 20C 9.080 mg/l Metcalf and Eddy Appendix D Cp DO Conc. @ Site Temp 7.680 mg/l Metcalf and Eddy Appendix D alpha 0.6 Typically 0.5-0.8 beta 0.98 ~0.98 theta 1.024 ~1.024 DO req 2 mg/l AOR/SOR 0.439

AOR Calcs BOD Loading 500.4 PPD NH3 Loading 50.0 PPD BOD O2 Req 1100.9 lb O2/day NH3-N O2 Req 230.2 lb O2/day Total AOR 1331.1 lb O2/day

Prepared by Mark A. Perkins Texas PE 60329 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. I-1 00082 TBPE Firm F 8699

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Aeration Requirement Calcs SOR 3033.7 lb O2/day Oxygen Concentraiton 0.23 lb O2/lb air TCEQ 217 Density of Air 0.075 lb air/cu ft TCEQ 217 Transfer Efficiency 26% Percent RAF W/Out Correction Factor 470 SCFM Submergence Correction Factor 1.56 TCEQ 217 RAF W/ Correction Factor 732.8 SCFM

Minimum Airflow Rate 3200.0 CFM/day lb BOD TCEQ 217 Aeration Basin Airflow Requirement 1112.0 CFM

Aeration Basin Volume Calcs TCEQ MAX. Organic Loading 35 lb BOD/d/1000cf Aeration Basin Volume Required 14297.1 cu ft Aeration Basin Volume Required 106942.6 gal

Clarifier

Minimum DT 1.8 hours Volume of Clarifier 8021.4 cu ft Maximum Surface Loading @ Peak 1200 gal/day/sq ft Maximum Surface Loading @ ADF 600 gal/day/sq ft Area of Clarifier 666.7 sq ft Diameter of Clarifier 29.1 ft Side Water Depth 12.03 ft

Clarifier Minimum Dimensions to Meet TCEQ Actual Clarifeir Area 804.2 sq ft Actual Diameter of Clarifier 32 ft Actual Side Water Depth 10 ft TCEQ minimum for surface areas larger than 300 sq ft Actual Volume of Clarifier 8042.5 cu ft Actual Surface Loading 995 gal/day/sq ft Actual Detention Time @ Peak 1.80 hours Actual Detention Time @ ADF 7.2 hours

Chlorine Disinfection

Minimum Contact Time 20 min TCEQ Minimum Chlorine Contact Basin Volume 1485 cu feet

Nitrified/Tertiary Filtration Effluent Chlorine Concentration for Disinfection 6 mg/l TCEQ minimum Chlorine Demand @ Peak 40.0 PPD Chlorine Demand @ ADF 10.0 PPD Sodium Hypo Cl Concentration 12.5% % Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ Peak 13.3 gal/hr Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ Peak 320.3 gal/day Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ ADF 3.3 gal/hr Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ ADF 80.1 gal/day

Prepared by Mark A. Perkins Texas PE 60329 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. I-2 00083 TBPE Firm F 8699

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Aerobic Digester, If Used. Sludge Holding Tank with Decant may be Used

Solids Yield 0.7 tons solids/MG Max Solids Concentration of WAS 2% percent solids TCEQ Max Solids @ ADF 0.14 tons/day Solids @ ADF 280 lb/day 70 Digester Detention Time 60 Days TCEQ 140 Solid Accumulation At Digester Detention Time 16800 lb solids 210 Volume of Solids 100719 gal Volume of Solids 13465 cu ft

Blower Capacity

Aeration 1112 SCFM Airlifts 40 SCFM Digester 404 SCFM Total Blower Capacity 1556 SCFM

Odor Control Capacity Digester Only 1712 SCFM

Filtration Maximum Filtration Rate 6.5 gpm/sq ft @ Peak TCEQ Minimum Filter Surface Area 85.5 sq ft

Prepared by Mark A. Perkins Texas PE 60329 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. I-3 00084 TBPE Firm F 8699

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW2017-7, LP ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Facility Design Features a. Design Features for Reliability and Operating Flexibility The Water Resource Reclamation Facility (WRRF) will be designed heavy-duty protective coatings to prevent corrosion and provide a long, lasting system. Air diffusers will be constructed to allow removal, replacement, and inspection of diffusers without drain the basins. With the small size of this system, temporary pumping and hauling of wastewater can be done for short periods of time if necessary. b. Excessive Inflow or Infiltration All treatment units offer approximately 18” freeboard. The WWRF will only serve the proposed multi-family residential development. The plant will be designed for a peaking factor of four, although the development will have newly constructed gasketed sewer lines and a relatively short collection system, minimizing the potential for inflow and infiltration. c. Power Failure A generator will be installed for backup power. d. Equipment Malfunction Each major piece of mechanical equipment (pumps, blowers, and chemical feeders) will have redundant units provided. The plant will be designed to operate at capacity with the largest piece of any group of mechanical equipment out of service. The facility design will be tailored to produce effluent of a quality higher than that required by the permit. e. Facility Unit Maintenance & Repair All major equipment will be accessible from the working surface above the plant or from ground level beside the plant. No underground confined spaces will require regular access.

I-4 00085

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment J Wind Rose Tech Report 1.1, Section 5.B

WES 20-001 00086

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT J AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION WIND ROSE 00087

AIRW - EXH. 4 Attachment K Sewage Sludge Solids Management Plan Tech Report 1.1, Section 7

WES 20-001 00088

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT K

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NEW PERMIT

SEWAGE SLUDGE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

• TREATMENT UNITS AND PROCESS DIMENSIONS See Treatment Units presented in Section 3.B of the Technical Report, (form TCEQ-10054) page 2 of 80.

• PROJECTED SOLIDS GENERATION: The table below shows the projected quantity of solids generated at design flow, and at 75%, 50%, and 25% design flow. The proposed Final Phase Design Flow is 0.20 MGD.

Percent of Design Flow Dry Pounds Per Day 25% 70 50% 140 75% 210 100% 280

It is expected that sludge can be thickened by decanting to 2-percent solids in the plant’s solids holding tank. Hauling frequency will vary based on flows, wasteloads, and thickening efficiency. Quantities shown above are based on an assumed production of 0.7 dry tons of solids per million gallons treated. • MLSS RANGE: MLSS in the aeration basin is expected to be in the 2,000 to 5,000 mg/l range. • OWNERSHIP OF ULTIMATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE: Sludge is transported by registered hauler, Wastewater Transport Services LLC, Registration No. 24343. Ultimate disposal site is to the Austin Wastewater Processing Facility, Permit No. 2384 in Travis County, Texas.

K-1 00089

AIRW - EXH. 4 From: Gordon Cooper To: Janet Sims; matth@liveW3.com Cc: Firoj Vahora Subject: WQ0015878001 AIRW 2017-7,LP - Additional Information and Materials Needed Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:08:30 AM Attachments: 15878001_20a_STDS.docx Importance: High

Ms. Sims,

The TCEQ Water Quality Standards Implementation Team has reviewed the application and is recommending effluent limits for total phosphorus of 0.5 mg/l, based on conditions in the receiving stream. Please provide a revised list of treatment units, flow diagram, and design calculations to include treatment for total phosphorus. For your convenience I have attached a copy of the memo from the Standards Implementation Team.

To avoid any unnecessary delays in processing the application for the draft permit for the proposed facility, please provide the additional information and materials to me as soon as possible, preferably no later than Monday, October 26, 2020. Please let me know if additional time will be needed.

Thank you very much, Gordon Cooper Environmental Permit Specialist TCEQ Municipal Wastewater Permits Team Direct 512-239-1963; FAX 512-239-4430

AIRW - EXH. 4 TCEQ Interoffice Memorandum To: Municipal Permits Team Wastewater Permitting Section Thru: Lili Murphy, Standards Implementation Team Peer Review Water Quality Assessment Section Water Quality Division From: Jenna R. Lueg, Standards Implementation Team Water Quality Assessment Section Water Quality Division Date: 6/26/2020 Subject: AIRW 2017-7, L.P.; Permit no. WQ0015878001 New; Application received 4/6/2020

The discharge route for the above referenced permit is via pipe to an unnamed tributary, thence to Mankins Branch, thence the San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River in Segment 1248 of the Brazos River Basin. The designated uses and dissolved oxygen criterion as stated in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (30 Texas Administrative Code §307.10) for Segment 1248 are primary contact recreation, public water supply, aquifer protection, high aquatic life use, and 5.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen. The aquifer protection use applies to the contributing, recharge, and transition zones of the Edwards Aquifer. The upper portion of Mankins Branch are in the transition zone.

Based on a nutrient screening, the Standards Implementation team recommends a total phosphorus limit of 0.5 mg/L.

Since the discharge is directly to an unclassified water body, the permit action was reviewed in accordance with 30 Texas Administrative Code §307.4(h) and (l) of the 2018 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards and the TCEQ's implementation procedures for the standards. Based on a receiving water assessment and/or other available information, a preliminary determination of the aquatic life uses in the area of the discharge impact has been performed and the corresponding dissolved oxygen criterion assigned.

Unnamed tributary; limited aquatic life use; 3.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen. Mankins Branch (intermittent with perennial pools); limited aquatic life use; 3.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen. Mankins Branch (perennial); high aquatic life use; 5.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen.

In accordance with 30 Texas Administrative Code §307.5 and the TCEQ implementation procedures (June 2010) for the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, an antidegradation review of the receiving waters was performed. A Tier 1 antidegradation review has preliminarily determined that existing water quality uses will not be impaired by this permit action. Numerical and narrative criteria to protect existing uses will be maintained. A Tier 2 review has

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

00091 AIRW - EXH. 4 preliminarily determined that no significant degradation of water quality is expected Mankins Branch, which has been identified as having high aquatic life use. Existing uses will be maintained and protected. The preliminary determination can be reexamined and may be modified if new information is received.

The discharge from this permit action is not expected to have an effect on any federal endangered or threatened aquatic or aquatic dependent species or proposed species or their critical habitat. This determination is based on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) biological opinion on the State of Texas authorization of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES; September 14, 1998; October 21, 1998 update). To make this determination for TPDES permits, TCEQ and EPA only considered aquatic or aquatic dependent species occurring in watersheds of critical concern or high priority as listed in Appendix A of the USFWS biological opinion. The determination is subject to reevaluation due to subsequent updates or amendments to the biological opinion. The permit does not require EPA review with respect to the presence of endangered or threatened species.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 00092 AIRW - EXH. 4 From: Janet Sims To: Gordon Cooper Cc: Firoj Vahora; Matthew Hiles - W3 Luxury Living (Matth@Livew3.Com); Mark Perkins Subject: RE: WQ0015878001 AIRW 2017-7,LP - Additional Information and Materials Needed Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:27:07 PM Attachments: WES Georgetown Tech Rpt p. 2 Rev Oct 20 2020.pdf Att F - Flow Diagram Rev Oct 20 2020.pdf Att I - WWTP Calcs Rev Oct 20 2020.pdf Att K - Sewage Sludge Solids Management Plan.pdf

Gordon, As requested attached are the revised documents to the permit application that reflect the proposed treatment processes and treatment units for achieving the recommended 0.5 mg/L total phosphorus effluent limit. The treatment process for achieving the proposed limit will be chemical addition. The treatment unit list, flow schematic, and design calculations as well as the sludge handling facilities have been revised. See attached.

In addition, AIRW 2017-7, LP is designing its system so that the treated effluent can be used for Type I beneficial reuse. The applicant will submit an application for an Authorization for Reclaimed Water Use upon receiving a signed TPDES permit for the wastewater treatment facility. The planned use for the reclaimed water is irrigation of landscape within the housing development. The flow schematic was revised to include information related to diverting flows to a storage tank for beneficial reuse.

If you need additional information or clarification of the information submitted, please do not hesitate to call or contact me.

Thanks,

Janet Sims Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. Office: (512) 735-1001 | Cell: (512) 695-2468

From: Gordon Cooper Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:08 AM To: Janet Sims ; matth@liveW3.com Cc: Firoj Vahora Subject: WQ0015878001 AIRW 2017-7,LP - Additional Information and Materials Needed Importance: High

Ms. Sims,

The TCEQ Water Quality Standards Implementation Team has reviewed the application and is recommending effluent limits for total phosphorus of 0.5 mg/l, based on conditions in the receiving stream. Please provide a revised list of treatment units, flow diagram, and design calculations to include treatment for total phosphorus. For your convenience I have attached a copy of the memo from the Standards Implementation Team.

AIRW - EXH. 4 To avoid any unnecessary delays in processing the application for the draft permit for the proposed facility, please provide the additional information and materials to me as soon as possible, preferably no later than Monday, October 26, 2020. Please let me know if additional time will be needed.

Thank you very much,

Gordon Cooper Environmental Permit Specialist TCEQ Municipal Wastewater Permits Team Direct 512-239-1963; FAX 512-239-4430

AIRW - EXH. 4 treatment plant, mode of operation, and all treatment units. Start with the plant’s head works and finish with the point of discharge. Include all sludge processing and drying units. If more than one phase exists or is proposed in the permit, a description of each phase must be provided. Process description: The proposed Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility is an activated sludge enhanced secondary with nitrification process plant. The wastewater treatment plant will be a package plant with two aeration basins, a secondary clarifier, chlorine contact basin, effluent filter and an aerated sludge holding/thickening tank.

Port or pipe diameter at the discharge point, in inches: 12

B. Treatment Units In Table 1.0(1), provide the treatment unit type, the number of units, and dimensions (length, width, depth) of each treatment unit, accounting for all phases of operation.

Table 1.0(1) – Treatment Units Treatment Unit Type Number of Dimensions (L x W x D) Units Aeration Basins 2 41’ x 14’ x 12.5’ SWD Secondary Clarifier 1 32’ dia. x 11’ SWD Chlorine Contact Basin 1 14’ x 12’x 9’ SWD Effluent Filter 1 -- Aerated Sludge 1 34,000 gallons Holding/Thickening Tank

C. Process flow diagrams Provide flow diagrams for the existing facilities and each proposed phase of construction. Attachment: F

Section 3. Site Drawing (Instructions Page 52) Provide a site drawing for the facility that shows the following:

TCEQ-10054 (06/01/2017) Page 2 of 80 Domestic Wastewater Permit Application, Technical Reports Revised 10/20/20 00095

AIRW - EXH. 4 ACTIVATED SLUDGE – EXTENDED AERATION PROCESS Chlorine Aeration Secondary Contact Effluent Basins Clarifier Chamber Filters Storage & Irrigation (Pending Approval of 210 Reuse Raw Authorization) Influent Final Effluent

Coagulant for Phosphorus Removal (2 feed points)* *Coagulant feed may be suspended if no discharge to receiving water

Off-site Return Sludge Waste Sludge Disposal

Aerated Sludge Holding/ Thickening Tank

ATTACHMENT F AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 00096 Revised 10/20/20

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility Activated Sludge Plant Design Features

Quantity and Quality of WW Number of Units 880 Persons/Unit 2.5 Total Population 2200 Flow Per Person 90 GPCD Average Flow 0.2 MGD Peaking Factor 4 Peak Flow 0.8 MGD BOD 300 mg/l NH3-N 30 mg/l

Aeration

O2 Req TCEQ eq. 1.63 lb O2/lb BOD O2 Req for BOD Ox 2.2 lb O2/lb BOD TCEQ States minimum for extended aeration is 2.2 O2 Req for NH3 Ox 4.6 lb O2/lb BOD Typically used. TCEQ does not state what to use.

Atmospheric Pressure Calcs Temp 85 F Temp 29.4 C Elevation 815 feet Elevation 0.25 km Psite 0.97 atm Psite 29.0 in Hg Pstd 29.92 in Hg

AOR/SOR Calcs C* DO Conc. @ Sea Level & 20C 9.080 mg/l Metcalf and Eddy Appendix D Cp DO Conc. @ Site Temp 7.680 mg/l Metcalf and Eddy Appendix D alpha 0.6 Typically 0.5-0.8 beta 0.98 ~0.98 theta 1.024 ~1.024 DO req 2 mg/l AOR/SOR 0.439

AOR Calcs BOD Loading 500.4 PPD NH3 Loading 50.0 PPD BOD O2 Req 1100.9 lb O2/day NH3-N O2 Req 230.2 lb O2/day Total AOR 1331.1 lb O2/day

Prepared by Mark A. Perkins Texas PE 60329 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. TBPE Firm F 8699 Revised 10/20/20 I-1 Revised 10/20/20 00097

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Aeration Requirement Calcs SOR 3033.7 lb O2/day Oxygen Concentration 0.23 lb O2/lb air TCEQ 217 Density of Air 0.075 lb air/cu ft TCEQ 217 Transfer Efficiency 26% Percent RAF W/Out Correction Factor 470 SCFM Submergence Correction Factor 1.56 TCEQ 217 RAF W/ Correction Factor 732.8 SCFM

Minimum Airflow Rate 3200.0 CFM/day lb BOD TCEQ 217 Aeration Basin Airflow Requirement 1112.0 CFM

Aeration Basin Volume Calcs TCEQ MAX. Organic Loading 35 lb BOD/d/1000cf Aeration Basin Volume Required 14297.1 cu ft Aeration Basin Volume Required 106942.6 gal

Clarifier

Minimum DT 1.8 hours Volume of Clarifier 8021.4 cu ft Maximum Surface Loading @ Peak 1200 gal/day/sq ft Maximum Surface Loading @ ADF 600 gal/day/sq ft Area of Clarifier 666.7 sq ft Diameter of Clarifier 29.1 ft Side Water Depth 12.03 ft

Clarifier Minimum Dimensions to Meet TCEQ Actual Clarifeir Area 804.2 sq ft Actual Diameter of Clarifier 32 ft Actual Side Water Depth 11 ft Actual Volume of Clarifier 8846.7 cu ft Actual Surface Loading 995 gal/day/sq ft Actual Detention Time @ Peak 1.99 hours Actual Detention Time @ ADF 7.9 hours

Chlorine Disinfection

Minimum Contact Time 20 min TCEQ Minimum Chlorine Contact Basin Volume 1485 cu feet

Chlorine Concentration for Disinfection 6 mg/l TCEQ minimum Chlorine Demand @ Peak 40.0 PPD Chlorine Demand @ ADF 10.0 PPD Sodium Hypo Cl Concentration 12.5% % Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ Peak 1.5 gal/hr Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ Peak 34.9 gal/day Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ ADF 0.4 gal/hr Sodium Hypochlorite Usage @ ADF 8.7 gal/day

Prepared by Mark A. Perkins Texas PE 60329 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. TBPE Firm F 8699 Revised 10/20/20 I-2 Revised 10/20/20 00098

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Tertiary Filtration

Maximum Filtration Rate 6.5 gpm/sq ft @ Peak TCEQ Maximum Minimum Filter Surface Area 85.5 sq ft

Phosphorus Removal

Ferric Chloride Dosage - Pre-Clarifier Plant Flow Rate 0.2 MGD 757000 L/day Estimated Influent Phosphorus 7 mg/L Ferric Chloride Soln Strength 40 % Density of Ferric Chloride Soln 1.4 kg/L Fe Mol. Weight 55.85 g/mol FeCL3 Mol. Weight 162.2 g/mol P Mol. Weight 30.97 g/mol kg FeCL3/L of Ferric Chloride Soln 0.56 kg/L kg Fe/L of Ferric Chloride Soln 0.193 kg/L Target Dosage 1.75 mol Fe/mol P Fe Required 3.16 kg Fe/kg P Ferric Chloride Soln Required 16.37 L/kg P 86.7 L/day Coagulant Dosage Rate 64.2 mg/L

Additional Sludge Production Plant Flow Rate 0.2 MGD 757000 L/day Estimated Influent Phosphorus 7 mg/L Ferric Chloride Soln Strength 40 % Density of Ferric Chloride Soln 1.4 kg/L Fe Mol. Weight 55.85 g/mol FeCL3 Mol. Weight 162.2 g/mol P Mol. Weight 30.97 g/mol O Mol. Weight 16 g/mol H Mol. Weight 1 g/mol Target Dosage 1.75 mol Fe/mol P Target Chemical Phosphorus Removal 90 % 0.203 mMol/L Fe added 0.396 mMol/L Precipitate in Fe1.6(H2PO4)(OH)3.8 0.325 mMol/L Precipitate in Fe(OH)3 0.070 mMol/L MW of Fe1.6(H2PO4)(OH)3.8 250.9 g/mol MW of Fe(OH)3 106.85 g/mol Sludge as Fe1.6(H2PO4)(OH)3.8 51.04 mg/L Sludge as Fe(OH)3 7.49 mg/L Total Additional Sludge Production 58.53 mg/L 97.6 lb/day

Prepared by Mark A. Perkins Texas PE 60329 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. TBPE Firm F 8699 Revised 10/20/20 I-3 Revised 10/20/20 00099

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Ferric Chloride Dosage - Post-Clarifier Plant Flow Rate 0.2 MGD 757000 L/day Estimated Influent Phosphorus 0.7 mg/L Ferric Chloride Soln Strength 40 % Density of Ferric Chloride Soln 1.4 kg/L Fe Mol. Weight 55.85 g/mol FeCL3 Mol. Weight 162.2 g/mol P Mol. Weight 30.97 g/mol kg FeCL3/L of Ferric Chloride Soln 0.56 kg/L kg Fe/L of Ferric Chloride Soln 0.193 kg/L Target Dosage 0.84 mol Fe/mol P Fe Required 1.51 kg Fe/kg P Ferric Chloride Soln Required 7.86 L/kg P 4.2 L/day Coagulant Dosage Rate 3.1 mg/L

Total Phosphorus Removal Estimated Influent Phosphorus 7 mg/L Target Chemical Phosphorus Removal - Pre-Clarifier 90 % Target Phosphorus Level - Clarifier Effluent 0.7 mg/L Target Chemical Phosphorus Removal - Post-Clarifier 50 % Target Phosphorus Level - Tertiary Filter Effluent 0.35 mg/L

Aerated Sludge Holding Tank with Decant Capability

Solids Yield 0.7 tons solids/MG Max Solids Concentration of WAS 2% percent solids TCEQ Max Solids @ ADF 0.14 tons/day Solids @ ADF 280 lb/day Digester Detention Time 15 Days TCEQ Solid Accumulation At Digester Detention Time 4200 lb solids Additional Solids from Coagulant 98 lb/day Additional Solids from Coagulant At Digester Detention 1464 lb solids Total Solids to Dispose 5664 lb solids Volume of Solids 33959 gal Volume of Solids 4540 cu ft

Blower Capacity

Aeration 1112 SCFM Airlifts 40 SCFM Digester 136 SCFM Total Blower Capacity 1288 SCFM

Odor Control Capacity Digester Only 1417 SCFM

Prepared by Mark A. Perkins Texas PE 60329 Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. TBPE Firm F 8699 Revised 10/20/20 I-4 Revised 10/20/20 00100

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT I

AIRW2017-7, LP ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY NEW TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND PLANT FEATURES

Facility Design Features a. Design Features for Reliability and Operating Flexibility The Water Resource Reclamation Facility (WRRF) will be designed heavy-duty protective coatings to prevent corrosion and provide a long, lasting system. Air diffusers will be constructed to allow removal, replacement, and inspection of diffusers without drain the basins. With the small size of this system, temporary pumping and hauling of wastewater can be done for short periods of time if necessary. b. Excessive Inflow or Infiltration All basins offer approximately 18” freeboard, and the clarifier offers a 12” freeboard in accordance with TCEQ design criteria. The WWRF will only serve the proposed multi-family residential development. The plant will be designed for a peaking factor of four, although the development will have newly constructed gasketed sewer lines and a relatively short collection system, minimizing the potential for inflow and infiltration. c. Power Failure A generator will be installed for backup power. d. Equipment Malfunction Each major piece of mechanical equipment (pumps, blowers, and chemical feeders) will have redundant units provided. The plant will be designed to operate at capacity with the largest piece of any group of mechanical equipment out of service. The facility design will be tailored to produce effluent of a quality higher than that required by the permit. e. Facility Unit Maintenance & Repair All major equipment will be accessible from the working surface above the plant or from ground level beside the plant. No underground confined spaces will require regular access.

Revised 10/20/20 I-4 00101

AIRW - EXH. 4 ATTACHMENT K

AIRW 2017-7, L.P. ROCKRIDE LANE WATER RESOURCE RECLAMATION FACILITY TEXAS POLLUTANT DISHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NEW PERMIT

SEWAGE SLUDGE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

• TREATMENT UNITS AND PROCESS DIMENSIONS See Treatment Units presented in Section 3.B of the Technical Report, (form TCEQ-10054) page 2 of 80.

• PROJECTED SOLIDS GENERATION: The table below shows the projected quantity of solids generated at design flow, and at 75%, 50%, and 25% design flow. The proposed Final Phase Design Flow is 0.20 MGD.

Percent of Design Flow Dry Pounds Per Day 25% 95 50% 189 75% 284 100% 378

It is expected that sludge can be thickened by decanting to 2-percent solids in the plant’s solids holding tank. Hauling frequency will vary based on flows, wasteloads, and thickening efficiency. Quantities shown above are based on an assumed production of 0.7 dry tons of solids per million gallons treated with an additional 58.5 mg/L solids produced from the coagulant dosage for phosphorus removal. • MLSS RANGE: MLSS in the aeration basin is expected to be in the 2,000 to 5,000 mg/l range. • OWNERSHIP OF ULTIMATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL SITE: Sludge is transported by registered hauler, Wastewater Transport Services LLC, Registration No. 24343. Ultimate disposal site is to the Austin Wastewater Processing Facility, Permit No. 2384 in Travis County, Texas.

Revised 10/20/20 K-1 00102

AIRW - EXH. 4 From: Gordon Cooper To: Janet Sims Cc: Firoj Vahora; Matthew Hiles - W3 Luxury Living (Matth@Livew3.Com); Mark Perkins Subject: RE: Comments to Draft TPDES Permit WQ0015878001 Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:34:17 PM Importance: High

Ms. Sims,

We have received a comment and contested case hearing request from the City of Georgetown regarding regionalization issues.

Based on the comments I am going to need the permittee to provide additional information that includes a justification for the proposed facility and a cost analysis of expenditures that includes the cost of connecting to the CCN facilities versus the cost of the proposed facility or expansion.

Please provide this information to me as soon as possible (preferably by Friday, January 29, 2021) and make sure that this information is also with the application and draft permit at the site that was designated for the public to be able to view and copy the application, draft permit, etc.

Thank you very much,

Gordon Cooper Environmental Permit Specialist TCEQ Municipal Wastewater Permits Team Direct 512-239-1963; FAX 512-239-4430

From: Janet Sims Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:58 PM To: Gordon Cooper Cc: Firoj Vahora ; Matthew Hiles - W3 Luxury Living (Matth@Livew3.Com) ; Mark Perkins Subject: Comments to Draft TPDES Permit WQ0015878001

Gordon, Thank you for preparing the draft permit so quickly. Attached are our review comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Janet Sims | Senior Project Manager Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc. 13740 N. Highway 183, Unit L-6 Austin, Texas 78750

AIRW - EXH. 4 Office: (512) 735-1001 | Cell: (512) 695-2468 jsims@perkinsconsultants.com | http://www.perkinsconsultants.com/

AIRW - EXH. 4 13740 N. Highway 183 #L6 Austin, TX 78750 Office: 512-735-1001 www.perkinsconsultants.com

January 29, 2021

Gordon Cooper Municipal Wastewater Permit Team (MC 148) Water Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087

Re: AIRW2017-7, L.P. – Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility Draft Permit WQ0015878001

Dear Mr. Cooper: As requested, AIRW2017-7, L.P. is submitting additional information to justify the proposed permit for the Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility. An analysis of the costs associated with connecting to the City of Georgetown (City) collection system has been conducted. As presented in Attachment H of the application submitted on April 6, 2020, correspondence from the City’s Planning Director, Ms. Sofia Nelson, to AIRW2017-7, L.P.’s Vice President Matthew Hiles was presented. Ms. Nelson indicated that in order to connect to the City’s collection system, annexation of the property owned by AIRW2017-7, L.P. was required. (See enclosure 1.) The costs associated with annexation by the City of Georgetown have been estimated to reduce the value of the applicant’s developed project by over $20 million. The annexation costs are based on lost value of the property when sold, payment of additional City taxes and fees, and costs to comply with the City’s zoning requirements. It is anticipated that upon completion of the construction of housing units and land improvements the value of the developed site will be between $138,250,000 and $172,800,000. At a city tax rate of $0.41872/ $100, the annual taxes owed to the City will be between $580,600 and $725,750. The lost value of the property attributable to City taxes alone are estimated to be between $13,000,000 and $18,000,000 under the arrangements proposed by the City as conditions of service. In addition, the City has informed AIRW2017-7, L.P. that some of the land at the site must be dedicated to uses other than residential. Commercial uses were suggested. This requirement is a significant change to the planned development, not consistent with the owner’s planned use, and represents further loss of value attributable to the conditions of service proposed by the City. Although, AIRW2017-7, L.P. agrees that regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities is generally a sound concept, in this situation operating a privately owned wastewater treatment

00105 AIRW - EXH. 4 Ms. Gordon Cooper January 29, 2021 Page 2

facility designed to meet very stringent discharge limits is substantially less costly than obtaining service from the City. The construction cost of an advanced treatment facility, capable of meeting effluent quality restrictions very similar to those Georgetown must meet at its four dispursed facilities, will be on the order of $5 million. This cost includes a planned storage tank and reuse system for AIRW2017-7, L.P. to capture and reuse as much effluent as practical on its own site for landscape irrigation. The proposed wastewater treatment facility is less than 1/4th of the lost development value that AIRW2017-7 L.P. would incur by obtaining service from Georgetown. This assessment is without impact fees and consideration given to the line extensions that would need to be paid for. While the City has indicated that service can be provided, it has not offered an economically viable option for such service. AIRW2017-7, L.P. proposes to construct an advanced treatment facility capable of meeting and exceeding the very stringent effluent quality standards established in the draft permit. The effluent is expected to be fully compliant with its permit. AIRW2017-7, L.P. values the highly treated effluent and the quality thereof, and plans to invest approximately $1 million to capture and beneficially reuse the effluent on its own property to the maximum practical extent. If you have questions about the information presented, please contact me at (512) 735-1001. Sincerely,

Janet Sims Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Cc: Matthew Hiles, AIRW2017-7, L.P.

00106 AIRW - EXH. 4 ENCLOSURE 1

AIRW - EXH. 4 13740 N. Highway 183 #L6 Austin, TX 78750 Office: 512-735-1001 www.perkinsconsultants.com

February 2, 2021

Gordon Cooper Municipal Wastewater Permit Team (MC 148) Water Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087

Re: AIRW2017-7, L.P. – Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility Draft Permit WQ0015878001

Dear Mr. Cooper: Last week I sent a response to your recent inquiry regarding AIRW2017-7, L.P.’s proposed permit for the Rockride Lane Water Resource Reclamation Facility. The applicant would like to offer additional information to clarify the cost of annexation and thus of obtaining wastewater service from the City of Georgetown (City) at this property, which is not in the City’s sewer CCN. AIRW2017-7, L.P. and its affiliates have developed numerous luxury multi-family properties in Texas. The value of the developed property is largely a function of the annual net operating income produced by the property, divided by a capitalization rate. The capitalization rate, expressed as a percentage, is the ratio of a property's net income to its purchase price, and is a key component in determining the value of the developed project. Capitalization rates in today’s market for properties like the one proposed for this site are on the order of 4.0 to 4.5%. The market value of the developed project is thus its net income times the inverse of the capitalization rate, or 22.222 to 25 times its net income. Since service from Georgetown is dependent on annexation and thus upon payment of the City property tax rates cited in my previous letter, the annual cost of property taxes is an operating expense that would not otherwise be incurred. It is capitalized at this rate and thus affects the value of the project by 22.222 to 25 times the annual property tax amount. Zoning restrictions and other costs of connection further add to the cost of service to the extent that receiving wastewater service from the City simply is not an economically viable alternative for AIRW2017-7, L.P. If you have questions about the information presented, please contact me at (512) 735-1001. Sincerely,

Janet Sims Perkins Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Cc: Matthew Hiles, AIRW2017-7, L.P.

00108 AIRW - EXH. 4 APPENDIX 4

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX 2/23/22, 9:27 PM TCEQ Regionalization Policy for Wastewater Treatment - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - www.tceq.texas.gov

(https://www.tceq.texas.gov)

Home (https://www.tceq.texas.gov) / Permits, Registrations, and Reporting (https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting) / Wastewater Treatment (https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater) / TCEQ Regionalization Policy for Wastewater Treatment

TCEQ Regionalization Policy for Wastewater Treatment Information for applicants and the public about the requirements associated with regionalization and TCEQ’s role in reviewing domestic wastewater permit applications.

On this page:

What is wastewater regionalization? When does TCEQ assess for wastewater regionalization? How has TCEQ decided on wastewater regionalization in the past? What do I need to provide as an applicant, for TCEQ to assess the need and availability of regionalization during the wastewater permitting process? How can the public participate in the wastewater permitting process?

What is wastewater regionalization?

Regionalization is the administrative or physical combination of two or more community wastewater systems for improved planning operation or management.

Texas Water Code (TWC) Section 26.081 provides Texas’ regionalization policy for wastewater treatment. It states that TCEQ is to implement a policy to “encourage and promote the development and use of regional and area-wide waste collection, treatment, and disposal systems to serve the waste disposal needs of the citizens of the state and to prevent pollution and maintain and enhance the quality of the water in the state”.

In furtherance of that policy TWC Section 26.0282 authorizes TCEQ, when considering issuing a permit to discharge waste, to deny or alter the terms and conditions of a proposed permit based on need and the availability of existing or proposed area-wide or regional waste collection, treatment, and disposal systems.

Back to top

When does TCEQ assess for wastewater regionalization? GT EXH. 15 Page 1 of 3 https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater/tceq-regionalization-for-wastewater GT PFT 0000263 1/3 2/23/22, 9:27 PM TCEQ Regionalization Policy for Wastewater Treatment - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - www.tceq.texas.gov

TCEQ will assess for the need and availability of regionalization for wastewater during the permitting process. The presence of a wastewater treatment facility or wastewater collection system within three miles of a proposed new wastewater treatment facility or the expansion of an existing facility is not an automatic basis to deny an application or to compel an applicant to connect to an existing facility.

TCEQ may approve new, renewal, and major amendment applications for discharges of wastewater in any of the following situations where:

There is no wastewater treatment facility or collection system within three miles of the proposed facility. The applicant requested service from wastewater treatment facilities within the 3 miles, and the request was denied. The applicant can successfully demonstrate that an exception to regionalization should be granted based on costs, affordable rates, and/or other relevant factors. The applicant has obtained a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for the service area of the proposed new facility or the proposed expansion of the existing facility.

Back to top

How has TCEQ decided on wastewater regionalization in the past?

TCEQ has not denied any wastewater permit actions based solely on regionalization, and the agency supports new applicants and existing facilities productively working together to provide quality and cost-effective service. The following concerns related to regionalization were raised during previous wastewater permit actions and subsequent legal proceedings:

lack of timely and cost-efficient wastewater services within the surrounding area lack of detailed cost analysis and comparison lack of thorough communication with existing facilities within a three-mile radius discharges within the Cibolo Creek Watershed per Title 30 , Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC), Section 351.65

TCEQ has previously included agreed language between the applicant and protestants in the “Other Requirements” section of the proposed permit that contains requirements about future coordination if the existing wastewater provider is able to provide service to proposed area.

Back to top

What do I need to provide as an applicant, for TCEQ to assess the need and availability of regionalization during the wastewater permitting process?

TCEQ requires that you include justification of permit need in all wastewater permit applications for new facilities and all applications to amend an existing permit. Section 1.1 of the Domestic Technical Report for wastewater permit applications also requires the following information:

GT EXH. 15 Page 2 of 3 https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater/tceq-regionalization-for-wastewater GT PFT 0000264 2/3 2/23/22, 9:27 PM TCEQ Regionalization Policy for Wastewater Treatment - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - www.tceq.texas.gov

1. Determine whether or not there are any permitted domestic wastewater treatment facilities or collection systems within a three-mile radius of the proposed facility. Tools to use: Wastewater Outfall Map Viewer (https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=d47b9419f42c49dea592203aeda99da1) PUC CCN Map Viewer (https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/water/utilities/map.aspx) 2. Contact any existing permitted domestic wastewater treatment facilities within a three-mile radius to inquire if they currently have the capacity to accept or are willing to expand to accept the volume of wastewater proposed. If an existing facility does have the capacity to accept the proposed wastewater, submit an analysis of expenditures required to connect to the existing facility or collection system versus the cost of constructing and operating the proposed new facility or expansion. 3. Provide copies of all correspondence with the owners and/or operators of any existing permitted domestic wastewater treatment facilities and collection systems within a three-mile radius of the proposed facility.

Back to top

How can the public participate in the wastewater permitting process?

Environmental Permitting: Participating in the Process (/agency/decisions/participation/permitting-participation) Permits for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: Learning More (/agency/decisions/participation/permitting-participation/municipal-wastewater)

Back to top

GT EXH. 15 Page 3 of 3 https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater/tceq-regionalization-for-wastewater GT PFT 0000265 3/3 APPENDIX 5

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 6

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 7

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 8

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 9

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 10

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 11

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 12

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX Tex. Gov't Code § 2003.047 *** This document is current through the 2025 Regular Session of the 89th Legislature bills: sb14, sb2, sb365, sb262; and the 2025 ballot proposition contingencies to date. ***

Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® > Government Code > Title 10 General Government(Subts. A - Z) > Subtitle A Administrative Procedure and Practice(Chs. 2001 - 2050) > Chapter 2003 State Office of Administrative Hearings(Subchs. A - Z) > Subchapter C Staff and Administration(§§ 2003.041- 2003.057)

Sec. 2003.047. Hearings for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

(a) The office shall perform contested case hearings for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (b) The office shall conduct hearings relating to contested cases before the commission, other than a hearing conducted by one or more commissioners. The commission by rule may delegate to the office the responsibility to hear any other matter before the commission if consistent with the responsibilities of the office. (c) The office may contract with qualified individuals to serve as temporary administrative law judges as necessary. (d) To be eligible to preside at a hearing on behalf of the commission, an administrative law judge, regardless of temporary or permanent status, must be licensed to practice law in this state and have the expertise necessary to conduct hearings regarding technical or other specialized subjects that may come before the commission. (e) In referring a matter for hearing, the commission shall provide to the administrative law judge a list of disputed issues. The commission shall specify the date by which the administrative law judge is expected to complete the proceeding and provide a proposal for decision to the commission. The administrative law judge may extend the proceeding if the administrative law judge determines that failure to grant an extension would deprive a party of due process or another constitutional right. The administrative law judge shall establish a docket control order designed to complete the proceeding by the date specified by the commission. (e-1)This subsection applies only to a matter referred under Section 5.556. Water Code. Each issue referred by the commission must have been raised by an affected person in a comment submitted by that affected person in response to a permit application in a timely manner. The list of issues submitted under Subsection (e) must: (1) be detailed and complete; and (2) contain either: (A) only factual questions; or (B) mixed questions of fact and law. (e-2)For a matter referred under Section 5.556 or 5.557. Water Code, the administrative law judge must complete the proceeding and provide a proposal for decision to the commission not later than the earlier of: (1) the 180th day after the date of the preliminary hearing; or (2) the date specified by the commission. (e-3)The deadline specified by Subsection (e-2) or (e-6), as applicable, may be extended: APPENDIX 13

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX Tex. Water Code§ 5.114 *** This document is current through the 2025 Regular Session of the 89th Legislature bills: sb14, sb2, sb365, sb262; and the 2025 ballot proposition contingencies to date. ***

Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® > Water Code > Title 2 Water Administration (Subts. A - F) > Subtitle A Executive Agencies(Chs. 5-10) > Chapter 5 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(Subchs. A - R) > Subchapter D General Powers and Duties of the Commission(§§ 5.101-5.136)

Sec. 5.114. Applications and Other Documents.

Applications and other documents to be filed with the commission for final action under this code shall be filed with the executive director and handled in the manner provided by this code.

History

Am. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 795 (S.B. 249), § 1.001, effective September 1, 1985.

Annotations

Research References & Practice Aids

Hierarchy Notes:

Tex. Water Code Title 2, Subtit. A. Ch. 5

Tex. Water Code Title 2, Subtit. A. Ch. 5, Subch. D

Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® Copyright© 2025 All rights reserved.

End of Document APPENDIX 14

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 15

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 16

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 17

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX Tex. Water Code § 26.028 *** This document is current through the 2025 Regular Session of the 89th Legislature bills: sb14, sb2, sb365, sb262; and the 2025 ballot proposition contingencies to date. ***

Texas Statutes & Codes Annotated by LexisNexis® > Water Code > Title 2 Water Administration (Subts. A - F) > Subtitle D Water Quality Control(Chs. 26 - 34) > Chapter 26 Water Quality Control(Subchs. A - M) > Subchapter B General Powers and Duties(§§ 26.011- 26.053)

Sec. 26.028. Action on Application.

(a) Notice of an application for a permit, permit amendment, or permit renewal shall be given to the persons who in the judgment of the commission may be affected by the application, except as provided by this section. (b) For any application involving an average daily discharge of five million gallons or more, the notice shall be given: (1) not later than 20 days before the date on which the commission acts on the application; and (2) to each county judge in the county or counties located within 100 statute miles of the point of discharge who have requested in writing that the commission give that notice and through which water, into or adjacent to which waste or pollutants are to be discharged under the permit, flows after the discharge. (c) Except as otherwise provided by this section, the commission, on the motion of a commissioner, or on the request of the executive director or any affected person, shall hold a public hearing on the application for a permit, permit amendment, or renewal of a permit. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the commission, at a regular meeting without the necessity of holding a public hearing, may approve an application to renew or amend a permit if: (1) the applicant is not applying to: (A) increase significantly the quantity of waste authorized to be discharged; or (B) change materially the pattern or place of discharge; (2) the activities to be authorized by the renewed or amended permit will maintain or improve the quality of waste authorized to be discharged; (3) for NPDES permits, notice and the opportunity to request a public meeting shall be given in compliance with NPDES program requirements, and the commission shall consider and respond to all timely received and significant public comment; and (4) the commission determines that an applicant's compliance history under the method for using compliance history developed by the commission under Section 5.754 raises no issues regarding the applicant's ability to comply with a material term of its permit. (e) In considering an applicant's compliance history under Subsection (d)(4), the commission shall consider as evidence of compliance information regarding the applicant's implementation of an environmental management system at the facility for which the permit, permit amendment, or permit renewal is sought. In this subsection, "environmental management system" has the meaning assigned by Section 5.127. (f) Notice of an application under Subsection (d) shall be mailed to the mayor and health authorities for the city or town, and the county judge and health authorities for the county in which the waste is or will be APPENDIX 18

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 19

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX APPENDIX 20

BRIEF OF APPELLANT JONAH WATER SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPENDIX Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Katy Hennings on behalf of John Joseph Carlton Bar No. 3817600 katy@carltonlawaustin.com Envelope ID: 101178059 Filing Code Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Brief of Appellant, Jonah Water Special Utility District Status as of 5/22/2025 4:24 PM CST

Associated Case Party: City of Georgetown

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Patricia Carls 3813425 tcarls@tcarlslaw.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Carlota Hopinks-Baul 24094039 chbaul@spencerfane.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Maris Chambers MChambers@spencerfane.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

William Thompson 24088531 will@lkcfirm.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Edmond McCarthy 13367200 ed@ermlawfirm.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

William Faulk 24075674 cfaulk@spencerfane.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

John Carlton 3817600 john@carltonlawaustin.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Helen Gilbert 786263 hgilbert@bartonbensonjones.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Colton Halter colton.halter@oag.texas.gov 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Todd Disher todd@lkcfirm.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Kelli Carlton kelli@carltonlawfirm.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM ERROR

Erin Selvera erin@carltonlawfirm.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM ERROR

Associated Case Party: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Kellie E.Billings-Ray Kellie.Billings-Ray@oag.texas.gov 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Sara Ferris sara.ferris@oag.texas.gov 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Jennifer Jamison jennifer.jamison@tceq.texas.gov 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Katy Hennings on behalf of John Joseph Carlton Bar No. 3817600 katy@carltonlawaustin.com Envelope ID: 101178059 Filing Code Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Brief of Appellant, Jonah Water Special Utility District Status as of 5/22/2025 4:24 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Jennifer Jamison jennifer.jamison@tceq.texas.gov 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Bobby Salehi bobby.salehi@tceq.texas.gov 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM ERROR

Erin K.Snody Erin.Snody@oag.texas.gov 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM ERROR

Associated Case Party: AIRW 2017-7, LP

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Andrew Davis andrew@lkcfirm.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: AIRW 2017-7, L.P.

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Yahaira De Lara ydelara@bartonbensonjones.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Jonah Water Special Utility District

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

John Carlton john@carltonlawfirm.com 5/22/2025 4:02:20 PM ERROR