NC0003298_Permit Issuance_19910123

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIN`: COVER :SLEET
NC0003298
NPDES Permit:
Document Type: ;
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Variance Request
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 23, 1991
This document iss printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse side

sgj
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
January 23, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Tedder
FROM: Leigh L. Stallings
er
RE: Federal Paper Board Company, Inc.
NPDES Permit No. NC0003298
File No. 90 EHR 1227
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
JAN 25 1991
SEC ? iON
Attached for your records is a copy of the Order Approving
Partial Settlement Agreement, entered by Judge Morrison on
January 17, 1991.
As you know, by the terms of the Partial Settlement
Agreement the Department has agreed to make certain modifications
to the subject permit. Those modifications are described in
paragraphs 3, 7, 10, 11 and 13 of the Agreement. I understand
from you and your staff that the Permit will be modified within
the next few weeks.
Please furnish this office with a copy of the modified
Permit upon issuance of same to Federal Paper.
If we may be of assistance to you in regard to this matter
during the pendency of the stay of the litigation, please do not
hesitate to call upon us.
LLS/sd
Attachment
A1*'+, ,--
rT ii L.
Fr
J \N 2 a 1991
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

FM FO
4 OFFICE r F
NORTH CAROL lW
lSi li.•ii��: { �.'.i`t''' IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COLUMBUScouitsyll 2 22 PM 91 90 EHR 1227
FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
-NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL )
RESOURCES AND THE NORTH CAROLINA)
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT )
COMMISSION, )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER 'APPROVING PARTIAL.SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND JOINT STIPULATION
TO VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN
CONTESTED PERMIT PROVISIONS AND _
GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR STAY.OF CONTESTED PERMIT
PROVISIONS
THIS MATTER coming before the undersigned for
consideration upon the submission by Petitioner and Respondents
of a Partial Settlement Agreement and Joint Stipulation to
Voluntaryl Dismissal of Certain Contested Permit Provisions
further upon the motion of Petitioner, with the consent of
and
Respondents, for stay of contested permit provisions and for stay
of the proceedings as to said permit conditions and good cause
havingbeen shown therefore,it is herebyORDERED that:
RD
1. The Partial Settlement Agreement and Joint
Stipulation to Voluntary Dismissal of Certain Contested Permit
Provisions entered the
into between parties and dated January 17,
1991 is hereby approved and enteried in this matter; and
2. Petitioner's Motion, with the consent of
Respondents., for Stay of Contested Permit Provisions and for Stay
of The Proceedings As To Said Permit Conditions dated
January 1711, 1991 is granted. The contested Effluent Discharge
Limitation for Dioxin (2378-TCDD) and the Compliance Date of

June 5, 1993, for meeting said Dioxin Discharge Limitation set •
forth in Part I(A) of the contested -Permit are hereby stayed
through and including the earlier of (i) the final resolution of
Petitioner's contested case appeal of said Permit provisions or
(ii) June 4, 1993. Further, the litigation of the Effluent
` Discharge Limitation for Dioxin (2378-TCDD) and the Compliance
Date of June 5, 1993, for meeting said Dioxin Limitation set
forth in Part I(A) of the Permit and of the Provisions of Part
V(B) of the Permit concerning the requirements for submission of
a Dioxin Control Plan is stayed until January 1, 1992, with the
provision that either party may commence discovery in regard
thereto on
September 1, 1991, by written notice to the other
party and to the Office of Administrative Hearings. Each party
shall file and serve a Prehearing Statement on all remaining
contested issues on or before January 21, 1992.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance by Petitioner
with the provisions of Part V(B) of the Permit by submitting a
Dioxin Control Plan within 120 days of the date of the Partial
Settlement Agreement as agreed to by the Parties in the
Partial Settlement Agreement shall be completely without
prejudice to Petitioner's right to challenge said Permit
provisions a.ons when this litigation recommences after the expiration
of the stay, and that such submission by Petitioner shall in.no
way constitute a waiver by Petitioner of any of its rights to
fully contest said Permit provisions.
2

c_
SO ORDERED, this the
sys/acd/acd15
8961.002
day of January, 1991.
•
The Honorable Fred G. Mo4ison, Jr.
Administrative Law Judge
3

wr
A copy was delivered this date to:
Amos C. Dawson III, Esq.
Attorney at Law
•
P. O. Drawer.19764
Raleigh, NC ,27619-9764
Attorney for,Petitioner
Leigh L.. Stallings
Deputy General Counsel
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Attf ripe fnrp�tnr,r�e*,t t
This the I'7 day of January, 1991.
Office of Administrative Hearings
Post Office Drawer 27447
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447
919/733-2698

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF COLUMBUS
FEDERAL PAPER BOARD
COMPANY, INC.,
)
Petitioner, )
•
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
90 EHR 1227
v. ) PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
JOINT STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ) DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CONTESTED
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL ) PERMIT PROVISIONS
RESOURCES and THE NORTH CAROLINA )
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT )
COMMISSION, )
)
Respondents. )
COME NOW, Petitioner, Federal Paper Board Company,
Inc., ("Federal") and Respondents, N. C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources ("Department") and the
N. C. Environmental Management Commission ("EMC"), and, based
upon their agreements and stipulations as set forth hereinbelow,
jointly agree and stipulate to the voluntary dismissal of certain
contested permit provisions pursuant to Rule .006 of the Rules of
the Office of Administrative Hearings (26 NCAC 3.0006) and Rule
41(a)(1) of the N.C.R.Civ.P. (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule
41(a)(1)). The Petitioner has, with the consent of Respondents,
moved concurrently herewith pursuant to 26 NCAC 3.0015 and N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 1508-33(b)(6)
to stay the effectiveness of the
Effluent Discharge Limitation for Dioxin (2378-TCDD) and the
Compliance Date of June 5, 1993, for meeting said Dioxin
Discharge Limitation set forth in Part I(A) of the Permit, which
have not been dismissed as set forth hereinbelow and to stay the

•
proceedings as to the remaining contested permit conditions until
January 1, 1992, under the conditions set forth herein.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On or about October 10, 1990, Respondent,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management issued and mailed to petitioner,
Federal Paper Board Company, Inc., NPDES Permit No. NC0003298
(hereinafter the "Permit"). The Permit, which is a renewal
Permit, was to become effective on December 1, 1990, and is to
expire on June 6, 1993.
2. On or about November 14, 1990, petitioner timely
filed a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of
Administrative Hearings contesting certain provisions, terms
conditions and limitations in the Permit.
3. Petitioner's Permit is also the subject of Special
Order By Consent EMC WQ No. 84-30 Ad II approved by respondent
Environmental Management Commission and dated July 12, 1990
(hereinafter the "SOC"). The terms of the SOC provide for a
schedule of compliance for Petitioner to meet the permit effluent
limitations for BOD5 and exclude April and May from the Summer
Effluent Limitations Period. The SOC became effective prior to
the issuance on October 10, 1990, of the renewal of Petitioner's
Permit.
4. Subsequent to the filing of Federal's Petition For
A Contested Case Hearing, the Parties have engaged in informal
settlement negotiations and have agreed to the resolution of the
contested permit provisions, terms, conditions and limitations as
set forth hereinbelow.

PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
JOINT STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
The Parties hereby stipulate and agree to the
resolution of the contested permit provisions, terms, conditions
and limitations as follows:
1. The inclusion of the months, of "Aprils' and "May"
in the Summer Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements in Part I(A) of the Permit: Federal contends
that the months of April and May should be included in the
Winter Effluent Limitations rather than in the Summer
Limitations and that said permit provision has not and will
not become effective during the term of the Permit because
it has been superseded by the provisions of the SOC. The
Department contends that the inclusion of April and May in
the Summer Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
of the Permit is required by 15A NCAC 2B .0404(c). However,
the Department and Federal stipulate and agree that the
"SOC" excludes April and May from the Summer Effluent
Limitations and further that this Permit provision is
superseded by the SOC and has not and will not become
effective during the term of the Permit.
Therefore, the Parties stipulate and agree that Federal
hereby voluntarily dismisses its appeal of this contested
permit provision, but that said dismissal of the appeal is
without prejudice to Federal's right to contest this
provision when and if it is imposed in any NPDES permit that
will become effective upon the expiration of the SOC.
3

•
L *+
2. The Effluent Discharge Limitations for BOD, 5 Day,
20° C in Part I(A) of the Permit: Federal has contested the
effluent discharge limitations for BODs but contends that
said limitations for BODs have not and will not become
effective during the term of the Permit because they have
been superseded by the BOD5 limitations in the SOC. The
Department and Federal stipulate and agree that the Effluent
Discharge Limitations for BOD5 contained in the Permit are
superseded by the BOD5 limitations in the SOC and have not
and will not become effective during the term of the Permit.
The Parties stipulate and agree that Federal hereby
voluntarily dismisses its appeal of these contested
provisions, but that such dismissal of the appeal is without
prejudice to Federal's right to contest the BODs limitation
provisions when and if they are imposed in any NPDES permit
that will become effective upon the expiration of the SOC.
3. The Effluent Discharge Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements for TSS in Part I(A) of the Permit: Federal
hereby voluntarily dismisses with prejudice its appeal of the
calculation of the TSS Effluent Discharge Limitations. The
daily to weekly and to revise the Permit to reflect this change.
Therefore, Federal hereby voluntarily dismisses with prejudice
its appeal of the contested TSS monitoring frequency issue.
4. Federal's Compliance with the Daily Average
Department agrees to modify, the TSS monitoring frequency from
Effluent Dissolved Oxygen Concentration of 5.0 mg/1 -
paragraph 1(b), page 1 of the SOC: The Parties stipulate
and agree that the inclusion of the words "and Dissolved
4

Oxygen" in the phrase "the Company is unable to comply with
the final effluent limitations for BOD5
found in Part I(A) of the Permit without construction and
proper operation of additional wastewater treatment
facilities . . ." which appear in paragraph 1(b) on page 1
of the SOC is a typographical error and shall be'.considered
deleted from the SOC
. Federal therefore voluntarily
dismisses with prejudice its appeal of the daily average
effluent dissolved oxygen concentration of 5.0 mg/1 per
liter in Part I(A) of the Permit.
5. The Effluent Discharge Limitation for Dioxin
(2378-TCDD) and the compliance date of June 5, 1993, for
meeting said dioxin discharge limitation set forth in
Part I(A) of the Permit: The Parties have been unable to
informally settle Federal's appeal of the dioxin effluent
limitation of 0.9 pg/1 effective June 5, 1993. However, for
the reasons set forth in the Petitioner's Motion To Stay
Contested Permit Conditions and Motion for the Stay of the
Proceedings As To Said Permit Conditions of even date
herewith, the Parties Agree that the litigation of the
Dioxin Effluent Discharge Limitation Provisions should be
stayed until January 1, 1992, with the further understanding
that either party may commence discovery with respect to
this issue on September 1, 1991. The Parties further
stipulate that nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be
construed to extend the June 5, 1993 date for compliance
with the effluent discharge limitation for dioxin.
5

6. The Schedule of Compliance set forth in Part I(B)
of the Permit: The Parties stipulate and agree'that the
effluent limitations for BOD5 and the definitions of Summer
and Winter Periods for BOD5 compliance set forth in the
Permit are superseded by the SOC, as stated in paragraph
2(A), page 2 of the SOC. Federal had requested that
language referencing the SOC be incorporated in the Schedule
of Compliance set forth in Part I(B) of the Permit.
However, the Department believes that it is unnecessary to
make any amendments to the Permit with respect to this term
in that the express language of the SOC and the Department's
representations with regard thereto suffice in clarifying
this matter. Based on the Parties' agreement and
stipulation as to this issue, Federal hereby voluntarily
dismisses with prejudice its appeal of this contested issue.
7. The provisions of Part II(A)(5), Toxic Pollutants,
of the Permit: The Department agrees to substitute the new
"boiler plate" condition numbered Part II(B)(1) for Part
II(A)(5) of the existing Permit. Therefore, Federal
voluntarily dismisses with prejudice its appeal of this
contested issue.
8. The provisions of Part II(B)(4), Upsets, of the
Permit to the extent said provisions do not include
unintentional and temporary non-compliance with water
quality -based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee within the
definition of "Upset": Federal hereby voluntarily dismisses
with prejudice its appeal of this contested issue.
6

9. -The provisions of Part II(C)(4),' Test Procedures,
of the Permit as they apply to the analysis of Dioxin
(2378-TCDD): The resolution of this contested issue is
discussed in paragraph No. 13 below.
10. The provisions of Part II(D)(1), Change in
Discharge, of the Permit: The Department agrees to
substitute the new "boiler plate" permit conditions numbered
Part II(E)(1) & (2) for Part II(D)(1) of the existing
Permit. Therefore, Federal voluntarily dismisses with
prejudice its appeal of this contested issue.
11. The provisions of Part III(D), Groundwater
Monitoring of the Permit: The Department agrees to amend
Part III(D) of the Permit to read as follows:
The permittee shall, upon written notice
from the Director of the Division of
Environmental Management, conduct groundwater
monitoring as the Director deems necessary to
evaluate the effects of the Permittee's NPDES
discharge upon the waters of the state.
Therefore, Federal hereby dismisses with prejudice its
appeal of this contested issue.
12. The provisions of Part III(E), Limitations
Reopener, of the Permit to the extent its provisions do not
allow for modification of the Permit to contain different
and less stringent effluent limitations or conditions: The
Parties stipulate and agree that the provisions of Part
III(E) do not limit the provisions of Part III(I) to
modification only for more stringent limitations. The
Parties further stipulate and agree that the Permit language
is written to reflect this intent. Therefore, Federal
7

/m/A4
voluntarily dismisses with prejudice its appeal of this
contested issue.
13. The provisions of Part V(A), Dioxin Monitoring,
and Part V(B), Dioxin Control Plan, of the Permit:
(a). The Department agrees to modify the third
sentence in the first paragraph of Part V(A) of the Permit
to read as follows:
If the measurement is below detection
limits the quantity, for purposes of
compliance evaluation, is considered to be
zero.
Therefore, Federal voluntarily dismisses with prejudice
its appeal of this contested monitoring issue.
(b). The Parties stipulate and agree that landfill
leachate monitoring is not required unless a leachate
collection system exists. At present, because Federal is
not collecting landfill leachate, the Parties stipulate and
agree that no such monitoring is required. This provision
of the Permit may become applicable in the future if
landfill leachate is collected. Therefore, Federal
voluntarily dismisses with prejudice its appeal of this
particular contested issue.
(c). Federal Paper Board has contested the provisions
of Part V(B), Dioxin Control Plan on the grounds that
Federal contends it
excess of statutory
Dioxin Control Plan
Federal's discharge
is arbitrary and capricious and in
authority to require Federal to submit a
when no dioxin has been detected in
and the levels of Dioxin in fish tissue
8

samples from the Cape Fear River below Federal's 'discharge'"' .
do not contain significant levels of dioxin. Federal
contends that it should never have been included on the
State's 304(1) listings.
The Petitioner, with the consent of Respondents, has
moved to stay the appeal of the contested Dioxin Effluent
Discharge Limitation and Compliance Date permit provisions
until January 1, 1992, with the provision that either party
may commence discovery on September 1, 1991.
Moreover, in order to attempt to avoid possibly
needless litigation, the Parties hereby agree that Federal
will comply with the provisions of Part V(B) of the Permit
by submitting a dioxin control plan within 120 days of the
date of this Settlement Agreement. The Parties further
stipulate and agree that such compliance with Part V(B) of
the Permit by Federal shall be completely without prejudice
to Federal's right to challenge these Permit provisions when
this litigation recommences after the expiration of the
stay, and that such submission by Federal shall in no way
constitute a waiver by Federal of any of its rights to fully
contest said Permit provisions. The Parties further
stipulate and agree that any dispute between the Parties
concerning Federal's compliance with these provisions of
Part V(B) of the Permit shall be determined when this
litigation recommences after the expiration of the stay.
14. Pursuant to the agreements and stipulations set
forth herein, Petitioner hereby withdraws its original
war �. s ;.S :"�'�'�.!,;,•
9

•
r : L
••f l,'•t`f
Motion .To Stay Contested Permit Provisions and Mo'tina iti.
M y�
•
Stay of The Proceedings filed on November 14, 1990, and with
the consent of Respondents substitutes therefor Petitioner's
Motion For Stay of Contested Permit Provisions and For Stay
of The Proceedings As To Said Permit Conditions of even date
herewith. ,
WHEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondents respectfully
request that this Partial Settlement Agreement and Joint
Stipulation of VoluntaryDismissal be approved and
i pp entered in the
above -captioned matter.
j This the 17th day of January, 1991.
bfc/acd/acd36
8961.002
BY:
��`O
Lei L S llings Lei L S allings
State Bar No. 12767
Office of General Counsel
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Attorneys for Respondents
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
MAUPIN TAYLOR ELLIS & ADAMS, P.A.
BY:
Amos C. Dawson III
State Bar No. 6584
Attorneys for Petitioner
Federal Paper Board Company, Inc.
3201 Glenwood Avenue
Post Office Drawer 19764
Raleigh, North Carolina 27619-9764
Telephone: [phone]
10

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
January 11, 1991
Mr. Charles Wakild
Environmental Resources Supervisor
Federal Paperboard Company, Inc.
Riegelwood Operations
Riegelwood, NC 28456
Dear Mr. Wakild,
This letter is to conclusively state the Division's position regarding the NPDES permit limit for BOD5 for
Federal Paperboard as established in the January 8,1991, meeting between representatives of DEM, Federal Paperboard,
and Hydroscience, Inc. DEM has carefully reviewed the modeling analysis of the Cape Fear River performed by
Hydroscience, as well as calibrating, verifying and applying our own water quality model of the lower Cape Fear River.
After comparing the two models, their results, 2Qnd the minor differences in approach, it is our conclusion that the two
models are very similar and produce essentially the same results. Based on the modeling analyses, we have found no
new information that warrants or justifies changing Federal's original allocation of 3500 #/day of BOD5. Given the
observed and predicted impacts on instream DO that are caused by Federal's effluent, with respect to the amount caused
by the other permitted dischargers to this section of the river and the limited natural assimilative capacity of the river,
this allocation can not be increased without detrimental effects to the quality of the river system.
Please contact Steve Tedder or Preston Howard if you have any questions regarding this matter. As you
know, the Special Order by Consent requires Federal Paperboard to submit a report detailing the wastewater treatment
and disposal alternatives for the Riegelwood mill on or before March 31,1991. We look forward to receipt and review
of your alternatives evaluation report.
cc: Steve Tedder
Preston Howard
Ed Barnhart
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Ktul Pam, (o
"by,tt. c,(A n, cam/ k�, \ �� . C 2 f-4-1 L L
lActuk Ludy) cov a, `�v ,-C ,�.t c� (,):-okcycAc
a-q-Cci-utick-C1)1 ) tcc.e.
lye""
z Q C1
(,).C�,,,,..� c yam«., v.- '`F-
u A_4- e wo,k a 1.0e
u;‘1( locc-cze. L4/

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
January 3, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: John Hunter, General Counsel
Office of General Counsel ,
Through: George T. Everett
From: Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Subject: Federal Paper Board Company
90 EHR 1227
Columbus County
Staff of the Division of Environmental Management has reviewed the letter of December 21, 1990,
forwarded to our office on December 27, 1990. The following comments are offered with respect
to the respective items:
1. April & May to be excluded from the Summer Effluent Limitation section
The exclusion of April & May for the summer period is acceptable in the Special Order by
Consent, however, Title 15A NCAC 2H .0404 (c) specifically outlines the Summer period
as April 1 through October 31. We do not support this exclusion of April and May in the
summer period and Federal has previously been advised of their option to pursue a
different summer period through a variance with the Environmental Management
Commission. (See attached letter of October 3, 1988) We do not support a stay of this
issue until the next permit cycle, since this permit does not expire until June 6, 1993. The
current SOC essentially supersedes this condition anyway and the SOC is to be effective
throughout the term of the current permit in question.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Page 2
Federal Paper Board Company
2. Effluent Limit for BOD
The Summer effluent BOD5 limit of 3500 lbs/day and Winter effluent BOD5 limit of 7000
lbs/day have been in the previous NPDES Permits since the plant expanded either in the
late 70's or early 80's. The Special Order has been set up to allow Federal Paper Board
Company to obtain data to justify to the Division that the BOD5 effluent limitations are
inappropriate. The limits currently in place are based upon our best available information
and tg defensible. The proposed stay serves no purpose since the Special Order covers
them compliance concerns and thus is opposed.
3. Total Suspended Solids Effluent Limitation
We agree with the frequency reduction from daily to weekly based upon extended detention
time of wastewater treatment facility and relative consistency of effluent TSS quality. The
TSS limit has been evaluated and the following calculations are offered as justification of
existing TSS limits:
Subpart G - Market Bleached Kraft (40 CFR 430.70 - 430.74)
Design: 1530 Tons per day (2000 lb/ton) = 3060 K lbs/day (K=1000)
Actual (from application): 1199 Tons per day (2000 lb/ton) = 2398 K lbs/day (K=1000)
BPT -1TSS - Subpart G
Design,
Monthly Average (3060K 16/day/)(16.4 lbs/day) = 50,184 lbs TSS/day
Daily Maximum (3060K lb/days)(30.4 lbs/day) = 93,024 lbs TSS/day
Actual
Monthly Average (2398K lb/days)(16.4 lbs/day) = 39,327 lbs TSS/day
Daily Maximum (2398K lb/days)(30.4 lbs/day) = 72,899 lbs TSS/day
Subpart H - BCT Bleached Kraft (40 CFR 430.80 - 430.84)
Design: 1351 Tons per day (2000 lb/ton) = 2702 K lbs/day (K=1000)
Actual (from application): 1023 Tons per day (2000 lb/ton) = 2046 K lbs/day (K=1000)

Page 3
Federal Paper Board Company
BPT TSS - Subpart H
Design
Monthly Average (2702K lb/days)(12.9 lbs/day) = 34,856 lbs TSS/day
Daily Maximum (2702K lb/days)(24.01bs/day) = 64,848 lbs TSS/day
Actual
Monthly Average (2046K lb/days)(12.9 lbs/day) = 26,393 lbs TSS/day
Daily Maximum (2046K lb/days)(24.0 lbs/day) = 49,104 lbs TSS/day
TSS Summary
Subpart G (actual values) + Subpart H (actual values) = Totals ( for permit)
Monthly Average: 39,327 lbs/day + 26,393 = 65,720 lbs/day
Daily Maximum: 72,899 lbs/day + 49,104 = 122,003 lbs/day
4. Effluent Dissolved Oxygen
This topic is related exclusively to the Special Order by Consent as there are no concerns
expressed as to the validity of the effluent dissolved oxygen limitation of 5.0 mg/1. The
Division has reviewed the issue as it relates to the Order and the Order can be modified to
strike out the reference to to effluent dissolved oxygen noncompliance.
5. Dioxin Limit and Compliance Date
The Division and the Environmental Management Commission have concluded, as recently
as October 11, 1990 Commission meeting that the current available data supports the
existing water quality standard for dioxin. The dioxin limit does not become effective until
June 5, 1993. The Division does not agree to a stay on the dioxin issue until June of
We do 'agree to commencing discovery in September of 1991.
6. Schedule of Compliance
The Division disagrees with the inclusion of any language referring to the SOC in the
Schedule of Compliance in Part I (B). This is unnecessary due to the specificity of Part 2
(a) of the Order by Consent. The Division will agree to inclusion of the "new" boilerplate
language for this condition, however, we will not agree to referencing the SOC in this
condition. We must keep in mind that an SOC is a state action and as such, the
Environmental Protection Agency does not recognize the Order as a Federal action and

reserves the right to enforce the NPDES Permit in effect. It is very unlikely that the EPA
would agree to Federal's proposal.
Page 4
Federal Paper Board Company
7. Part II(A)(5) - Toxic Pollutant Reopener Clause
Federal is willing to accept the "new" boilerplate language as long as we delete "... even
if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement." This language is
essentially a direct quote from 40 CFR 122.41 (a)(1). The Division will allow
substitution of Part II(B)(1) of the "new" boilerplate for Part II(A)(5) of the permit issued
to Federal Paper Board Company.
8. Part II(B)(4) - Upset Defense & Water Quality Based Limits
The Division recommends that permit condition II (B)(4) be retained without change.
Based on NCRD v. EPA 859 F.2d 156, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1988), EPA has been ordered
to "conduct further proceedings_ to determine whether to extend the upset defense to
violations of water quality based permit limitations."because these proceedings have
not en completed, it is not necessaryto revise thepermit language at this time. If or
P
when EPA extends the upset defense to violations of water quality based permit
limitations, we will modify our conditions. Although the permit does not specifically
cover water quality based permit violations, the Division will still consider the upset t�
defense when appropriate.
9. Part II (c) (4) - Test Procedures for Dioxin
The Division feels that the Part 11 (c)(4) is defensible. The condition allows the use of
the most sensitive approved method where minimum detection and reporting levels are
below permit discharge requirements.
10. Part II (D)(1) - Change in Discharge
Federal is willing to accept "new" boilerplate language for "Change in Discharge" and
"Planned Changes" in Part II (E)(1) & (2). The Division concurs with the substitution
of the "new" boilerplate language Part II (E)(1) & (2) for Part II (D)(1) of the existing
permit.
11. Part III (D) - Groundwater Monitoring
It is the Division's belief that the original intent of this condition was to address
groundwater quality standard violations caused by the treatment/disposal practices
associated with the NPDES discharge (i.e., lagoons, sludge, etc...) The presence of
numerous monitoring wells and a groundwater monitoring program for Federal Paper
Board's wastewater treatment system and sludge storage/disposal facilities clearly
substantiate the need for such a condition. Plans and specifications submitted to the
Division for approval (Authorization to Constructs) are considered a part of the
NMES Permit. The plans and specifications must be in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H .0219 (g), which require a groundwater monitoring program. However, we
recommend that the Office of General Counsel investigate this topic and provide the
Division concise legal guidance.

Page 5
Federal Paper Board Company
12. Part III (E) & (I) - Limitation Reopener
The language contained in conditions III (E) & (I) do not mention more or less
stringent limitations. The language in III (I) is almost an exact quote offered by
Federal's former Director of Environmental Affairs, Marshall T. White (See attached
January 16, 1990 letter). The only change was a substitution of the word "modified"
for "increased" in Mr. White's proposed language. Condition (E)(1) specifically
references 40 CFR 122.62 which in the Division's opinion, allows us to modify 2
effluent limitations, either more or less stringent determinations.
13. Part V(A) - Dioxin Monitoring and Part V(B) Dioxin Control Plan
The Division agrees to the third sentence modification with the deletion of the
following:
"...unless quantification below 10 picograms per liter is achieved."
The new sentence should read:
If the measurement is below detection limits the quantity, for the purposes of
compliance evaluation, is considered to be zero.
Dioxin Control Plan
Since no leachate collection system exists, monitoring would not be required.
Although leachate is not being collected, leachate could exist. Therefore, this
condition should remain so that monitoring could be required if leachate is detected.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Donald Safrit, Supervisor of the Permits and
Engineering Unit or me at 919/733-5083.
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Permits and Engineering Unit

i1c 2i , j X Q (e-1
J
do (A-i< Je0 4
( <' co/3/U✓
z.
3 s5
c
60D
4,0 ct.cs ret w / jls.;c .t----/ 1,6,,w&vvv- L(L. & !Z 1,.`-1., , :f
3Sd o/7000 v"1- vwcr'YYr' 1 Sc kc r
3 50 o 77 a 49'0 v_- 6-4.n,cc hi"- tu,,J`
- 50 G 5 1: c,c- c s-" e NVI S -
aid ..v -- 4,1kxA v-zd .'."-- , do-,"__
jct.:A
s:i- kC,,5
11i231WLA - 0./2/(cck4In
- CC Otte
u 31 ` c,ki CALSO -7/t / ?S wL4 - 1-05-rek.)
(//) 1pl$ 12500/ - 5e4,4 l'S; 720. (0)

•
4o crR430• 87_ 61e
rut_ r,g1A)
,cA. - c�
T1S. 5 -no- s/G/-1
l0/t9/88
57-4h F F4)."sr
40 cr(Z4 3 , 7 Z iti1--ke.,F ,200 TPA
ioo T'D

1
k/k
p o.
1 r Lad/',r Lf <, 9- L
� � J CG !t r# i G✓,4i/tto (-) Td. /r�S i''•r F�Gf-�cT/�`
�o� n 0
S7A7
/
5 17
44M'
ic62 ? LeTS
? Ski
'f/-c f-e", n- `7
,4- 14 AK
GowGd
fiosT /P6--ta
ry
soc �s 5
A-ev.A.,LAA 0,-
;-C-0&1•0M LVA-1 J "Z-
L-11- aAA-- r5� -"'/{
L, tAA- - ki-6 V 1
rwc�w
_ LAJcvici
Gu A... (c _ w L 0)(1)(c.)7
iteAA.L-,( 4,4 ye,4 64.4Ar- 14-.0 ci
o".
Le
S¢
No,0,110
rofi ccc
vww
c&- -

E. pe_A- (8)0-)
Permit conditions II. B .4 will be retained without change.
Based on NRCD v. EPA 859 F.2d 156, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1988), EPA
has been ordered to "conduct further proceedings to determine
whether to extend the upset defense to violations of water
quality -based permit limitations". Because these proceedings
have-not beeila compltoo, .t Jr,.not necessary..to r vir. the pe !+
language at this time.
1. 10(0(4) 1 roc .a_si s
(c) (4-) atai ly
50
A
S — cei
10. r ec,LJ C,,i
()(() SA1,54-4Jk r COO) } (2) • Cb)(()
P„,,,k - i (Q
5L
how
VLLAAN'-th- (AAA- vvkA2A^.4LikH clv eli 5 A
.5r5
c (t o. L/ s s �0„`.1 � tic-.
!3>

(
5
-7. R-r 4 - A - A-e. �c u
e.,-.41 Tre-,6).0,1 ka..0 /4-1 /it 1 7
/ . r (A4. To il.L64
pAAN;A- ti7A, (7/7Afee,la
kttio4- ) cr .. 1 ris„ [ir (8 )(1)( ]
L--c�P
,Q„,..,>? 1, 4.4 „.4
y
!J ,4,4 L
0-2.4 (*)

(j)
p7�
Cori 1/ ( /So (A-... I o __
13 .
6.4 4- SO c a - ow rep _
Oes5 AN/\inr-+) 44-4 131PJ C oc
Va cs, cc cYDcec- s .
A
lJ cvovs
wLi2Ak L,-) i Q,v. wton�
ce/2 1 472
YVtCv�i cam. n�
La/
{
v wo.—�TS , e
5 ctIolt-) vIeTQC O✓1 1•Mi4 s C10 J
d-erccr/oiv L«Cc.r G-61— e4 U, s
Lest I—#9r l 0 s1nt-Ld If t4 sty
14.
�oX.,r1
I
119 Le-C..C`1_ c ((ec4
W w.k.ok
,mot Lam.
clw+• : Sf
f}L r # cN 47-' - /s
Arts
g lJ5 kow•-
1 T co L., STicz X
e_C TA -/A- r, d 7^a w-C L. //Lt._
�T r-e /1=
o LLe c71G.D

.p rL(8X¢) ue u+S
T
wQ -L 2 L5
40-
1✓h�� r
oC4-Tioi-.J
L /-✓RCC
rfr- t 7- ,Oa
U/0L#Tto J
10 .
E Xr" ' T/e etr-t Ta0
Q 0".4-J�o
/,."o,p1 f 7 d � Il G ,Qt r 77 a �4 '� � T�t-o G, 6-//
'4" 7—.i l c/ F l c 9 G C 1 G L✓ ,J
j �� c x 4) 7:-/l 1 ro c<_c,s , .; (s-`'`
Tc)
U
T°
Cc)(A-) °,-..(,i . sue,. — COy
f 5 E ! o-J e k""`o W c_ vunnn-^
n,'�1/L�L � � J cJ
'%49-'4H I eJ V-(,(5 tVl-C Gefe),Ai 1C4JV'^'?
1(. P.., - -Di (0)
U.)R_ 5C
VJa 5 v� o ,Vv .c
� SCr
(c)(�) C2) L ( )(`)
Cz < t(itc,41
tAA,Q1L^-4•CH (IQ dk.
y sr-t.e/tA,_ occy_ 5-6/c-1.84 5ps
{ e,(i S ,310 Lgt„G{ '7'"" SJ c h
lg-4"Ad c SQ-c c/Fr cg Tio.c.-)
,�,� r- a %-,ifs PeA /T,
.A-4 7- C ifIagret- /r C O!t j,/j v/ (r
w
2}�, e,Z o o , z,', 02/ 9(i)G ,

ARMISTCAO J. MAUP,$
W/ll1AM W. TATLOR. JR,
TMOMAS I. CLL/S
TMOMAS r. ADAMS. J.
CHARLES O NCLLT. JR,
TMOMAS W. N. ALLKANOCR
RODENT A. VALOIS
JOHN T, WILLIAMSON
'RANK P WARO. JR.
ALSCRT OO. etll. JP.
RICMARO M. LCwIS
NANCY S. AcNOLCMAN
w. CAMP
MARGIC T. CASE
M. KCITN KAPP
MARK S. TNOMAS
DAV/O R. DORTON
MUGM R. OVCRMOLT
OAVIO M.
STCVCN D. SIMPsoN
JOHN C. COON(
THOMAS A. •ARR
MOLMCS r MARDCN
A. MO . m
O. ROTCC POWCLL
JOHN C. MILLOCRO
WILLIAM O. GWTN, JR.
$COT? A. WILSON
JAMCS C. DATES
AMOS C. DAWSON. 8
STLVCN M. RU01$Ill
L.SA C. SENNETT
Gll C. LAITC. 8
RONAID R. ROGCRs
JACK w. MARIN
3TCPNLN SIT, YLIVCRTON
TIMOTNT S. RIOROAN
JOSCPN M. LISCNWC
SHARON N. SPENCE
CLIZADCTN O. SCOTT
JACK S. NOLMLS
RCUSCN O. CLARK. I
RODNCTO. LONMAN
ROSCRT A. CONCN
DANICL K.IORTSON
ORCTCMCN w CWALT
JOHN T. M ON
WINSTON L. RADC. JR.
ROOCRT L. wSLSON, Jet.
JCSSICA DAGG
JOHN N. DCNNETT
•RANKJ CORDON
M4CNACL C. LORD
WILLIAM J.ORIAN. JR.
GLCNN C. DRAT
MICHACI S. SwfNOCII'
•RANK N, SMCIIICLO. JR.
KARON O. $OWLINO
DAVID R. MO
J• CNUT. JR.
ANN POTTCR
JOHN O.00ARO
O•COUNSEI
*OMITTED ONLT IN SOUTH CAROLINA•
MAU PI N TAYLOR ELLIS & ADAMS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3201 GLENWOOD AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27612-5008
TELEPHONE [phone]
December 21, 1990
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27619-9764
TELEFAX [phone]
WASHINGTON OFFICE
1130 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.. SUITE 750
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20036-3904
TELEFAX(2021457-8558
TELEPHONE <202) 429-8910
ROCK HILL OFFICE
200 OAKLAND AVENUE. SUITE 200
ROCK HILL. SOUTH CAROLINA 29730-4022
TELEFAX [phone]
TELEPHONE [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 10880
ROCK HILL. SOUTH CAROLINA 29731-0880
WRITER'S OIRECT DIAL NUMBER
8SI -40 1 0
John Hunter, Esq.
General Counsel
Department of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Federal Paper Board Company, Inc.
Appeal of Riegelwood Operations NPDES Permit No. NC0003298
90 EHR 1227
Our File No. 8961.002
Dear John:
On December 13, 1990 Chuck Wakild, Director of Environmental
Affairs for Federal Paper Board Company ("Federal") and I met
with you, Leigh Stallings, Steve Tedder, Preston Howard, Trevor
Clements, and Don Safrit for an informal conference on the
Riegelwood' NPDES permit appeal. We discussed the contested
provisions of the permit in order to see which issues could be
informally settled. We also discussed each party's position
regarding a stay of the contested conditions and possible stay of
the litigation of those conditions.
There, appeared to be a number of contested provisions which
may be settled informally. You and Steve Tedder requested that
Federal provide you with a letter detailing Federal's position on
the contested provisions so that the Department could determine
its position on each issue and provide us with a formal response.

John Hunter, Esq.
December 21, 1990
Page 2
Set forth below are the major contested provisions with a
summary of Federal's position on each issue. Please be advised
that this is not an inclusive listing and that there may be other
related issues raised in the contested case hearing if these
matters are not resolved informally.
1. The inclusion of the months of "April" and "May" in the
Summer Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements in Part I
(A) of the permit: Federal believes that the months of April and
May should be included in the Winter Effluent Limitations rather
than in the Summer Limitations. As you are aware, in Federal's
original NPDES permit and in all subsequent Special Orders by
Consent ("SOCs") under which Federal has operated, April and May
have been included in the Winter period.
You advised us that DEM's position is that April and May are
included in the Winter Effluent Limitations period by regulation,
and that Federal would have to ask for a variance from the
regulation.
• We therefore were unable to agree to an informal resolution
of this issue. However, I believe we are in agreement that these
provisions of Federal's 1990 NPDES permit are superseded by the
provisions of Special Order by Consent EMC WQ.No. 84-30 Ad II
dated July 12, 1990. Pursuant to this SOC, Federal has until
late 1995 to meet the final effluent limitations in its permit
for BOD5. The 1990 Federal NPDES permit expires on June 6, 1993.
Therefore, Federal will not have to comply with the
effluent limitations and effluent periods for BOD set forth in
the 1990 permit but instead will have to comply with the subject
limitations in the permit which succeeds the current permit and
which will likely be effective during 1995. Therefore, I believe
we are,in agreement that the contested provisions concerning the
inclusion of April and May in the Summer Period and the Effluent
Limitations for BOD5 should be stayed until the renewal permit is
issued.
2. The Effluent Discharge Limitations for BOD, 5 Day, 20°C
in Part I (A) of the permit: As set forth in paragraph number 1
above, 'the BOD limitations in the 1990 permit have been
superseded by the BOD limitations established in the 1990 SOC.
Because the 1990 permit expires on June 6, 1993, the BOD ,
limitations in the 1990 permit will not be the final effluent
limitations for BOD which Federal is required to meet under the
1990 SOC. Hence, I believe Federal and the Department are in
agreement that the contested BOD limitations in the 1990 permit
are not, and will not become, effective. Therefore, the
litigation of the contested BOD limitations should be stayed
until the issuance of the subsequent permit that will contain the

John Hunter, Esq.
December 21, 1990
Page 3
limitations for BOD which Federal will ultimately be required to
meet.
3. The Effluent Discharge Limitations and Monitoring
requirements for TSS in Part I (A) of the permit: As we
discussed, Federal believes an error has been made in the
calculation of the TSS limitations. Federal also requested that
the monitoring measurement frequency for TSS be changed from
daily to weekly.
Based on our discussions at the settlement conference, we
understand that the Department will recheck its calculations of
the TSS discharge limitations. We also understand that the
Department has agreed to change the monitoring measurement
frequency for TSS from daily to weekly.
4. The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen
concentration of 5.0 mg/1 in Part I (A) of the permit: As
discussed, Federal believes it has been in compliance with the
effluent limitations for dissolved oxygen found in Part I (A) of
its permits. Nevertheless, the 1990 SOC states in paragraph 1(b)
on page 1 that "the Company is unable to comply with the final •
effluent limitations for BODS and Dissolved oxygen found in Part
I (A) of the Permit without construction and proper operation of
additional waste water treatment facilities."
During our discussion of this issue, it became apparent that
there was confusion as to why the statement concerning alleged
noncompliance with the dissolved oxygen limitation was included
in the 1990 SOC. Federal requests clarification of this issue
from DEM in order to determine whether the appeal of the
dissolvedoxygen limitation in the 1990 permit needs to be
pursued.
5. The Effluent Discharge Limitation for Dioxin (2378-TCDD)
and the compliance date of June 5, 1993 for meeting said Dioxin
discharge ,limitations set forth in Part I (A) of the permit:
Based on our discussions of the dioxin issues, it appears that
Federal'slappeal of the dioxin effluent limitation of 0.9 pg/1
effective June 5, 1993 cannot be informally settled at this time.
Therefore, we discussed a schedule for litigating this issue. As
we understand it, the Department anticipates that some time in
the future it will go to rulemaking on the dioxin water quality
standard. We all believe that additional scientific information
concerning dioxin will be forthcoming and that activities in
other states related to changes in their water quality standards
for dioxin may lead the Environmental Management Commission to
reevaluate the dioxin standard.

;r
John Hunter, Esq.
December 21, 1990
Page 4
Hence, it appears both parties believe that a delay of the
litigation of the dioxin effluent limitation would be beneficial.
You indicated that the Department might be agreeable to a stay of
the contested dioxin limitation until June of 1993 and that you
felt a delay of the litigation of the limitation until January of
1992 would be appropriate. Federal is agreeable to this
schedule, if the Department will agree that discovery could be
commenced as early as September of 1990 if either party desires
so that a hearing could be held on this issue by September of
1992.
6. The Schedule of Compliance set forth in Part I(B) of the
permit: (Based on our discussions, it appears both parties agree
that the 'effluent limitations for BOD and the definition of
Summer and Winter periods for BOD compliance set forth in the
1990 permit were superseded by the 1990 SOC, which became
effective prior to the issuance of the 1990 NPDES permit. Hence,
Federal believes that the Schedule of Compliance set forth in
Part I(B) of the permit providing that Federal shall comply with
Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of the permit
"(December 1, 1990) should be amended to indicate that compliance
with certain effluent limitations is governed by the 1990 SOC
rather than by the permit.
Federal would prefer that this clarification be made in the
permit itself. The new "boilerplate" language for standard
permit conditions which DEM is currently evaluating anticipates
circumstances where compliance with final effluent limitations is
achieved at a future date by stating that: "Permittee shall
comply with Final Effluent Limitations by the effective date of
the permit unless specified below." Federal requests that the
new boilerplate language be used and that the 1990 SOC compliance
dates be referred to "below" it.
You indicated that the Department might prefer to make this
clarification by separate letter or by an amendment to the SOC.
Please give this matter your consideration and let us know of the
Department's preferred method for resolving this issue.
7. The provisions of Part II(A)(5), Toxic Pollutants, of
the permit: Federal has contested the Toxic Pollutants
provisions of Part II(A)(5) of the permit because Federal
questionsithe authority of the Department to require compliance
with effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section
307(a) ofIthe Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the
time provided within the regulations that establish those
standardsor prohibitions even if the permit has not yet been
modified to incorporate the requirement. Federal does not
believe that such requirements would be enforceable by the
Department without a modification of its permit. At the very

John Hunter, Esq.
December 21, 1990
Page 5
least, the new "boilerplate" permit condition
should be used with the language ".en [II(B)(1)(a)]
not yet been modified to incorporate the requ if thet delet has.
requirement" deleted.
At our settlement conference, DEM agreed to clarify the
Department's position on its authority to enforce this
rmit
condition. After reviewing the Department's position, Federa
will be in a position to determine whether to 1
of this pursue the appeal
particular condition.
8. The provisions of Part II(B)(4), Upsets, of the permit
to the extent said provisions do not include unintentional and
temporary non-compliance with water quality -based permit effluent
limitations',because of factors beyond the reasonable control of
the permittee within the definition of "Upset:" Federal has
appealed the Upsets provision of the permit on the grounds that
the provision does not provide an upset defense for water
quality -based permit limitations. In NRDC v. EPA, 859 F.2nd 156
(DDC 1988), the Court of Appeals for the District of Washington,
D.C. held that EPA's failure to extend the upset defense to water
quality -based permits was improper. Id., 859 F.2nd at 210. The
Court directed EPA to conduct further proceedings to determine
whether to extend the upset defense to violations of water
quality -based permit limitations. Ibid.
Federal 'contends that it is
arbitrary and capricious not to
extend the upset provisions of the permit to include water
quality -based permit limitations and requests the Department to
amend the permit accordingly.
9. The provisions of Part II(C)(4), Test Procedures, of
the permit as they apply to the analysis of Dioxin (2378-TCDD):
Federal's contentions on these contested provisions will be
discussed in conjunction with the requirements for Dioxin
Monitoring set forth in Part V of the permit (see paragraph 13
below.)
10. The provisions of Part II(D)(1) Change in Discharge,
of the permit:
As discussed during our informal settlement
conference, Federal believes that the Change in Discharge
provisions of':the permit are unclear, vague, ambiguous and in
excess of the Department's statutory authority. In particular,
Federal believes the language requiring that "any anticipated
facility expansions, production increases, or process
modifications which will result in new, different, or increased
,discharges of pollutants must be reported . . ." does not provide
the permittee with sufficient notice of the requirements for
reporting to the Department. It appeared we were all in
agreement that ! the term "different . . . discharges of
pollutants" is particularly ambiguous. Federal contends that

John Hunter, Esq.
December 21, 1990
Page 6
anticipated facility expansions, production increases or process
modifications are only required to be reported if they will
result in new, substantially different or increased discharges
that will or could result in a violation of the effluent
limitations specified in the permit.
Federal 'has reviewed the "new" standard permit conditions
which the DEM is currently considering. Federal believes that
the "Change in Discharge" and "Planned Changes" conditions in
Part II(E)(1) & (2) of the new "boilerplate" are preferable to
the "Change in Discharge" provisions of the 1990 permit. Federal
requestsIthat the "new" Change in Discharge and Planned Changes
standard permit conditions be substituted for the existing Change
in Discharge provisions in the 1990 permit.
11. The provisions of Part III(D), Groundwater Monitoring,
of the permit: As we discussed, Federal has challenged the
Groundwater Monitoring provisions of the permit on the grounds
that these provisions exceed DEM's authority. Federal contends
that the Director of DEM lacks authority to require a permittee
ko conduct groundwater monitoring absent an indication that the
NPDES permitted activities have caused a contravention of
groundwater standards or regulations.
You Agreed to provide a clarification of the Department's
position on this issue. After reviewing the Department's
position; Federal will be able to determine whether to pursue the
appeal of this particular permit provision.
12. The provisions of Part III(E), Limitations Reopener,
of the permit to the extent its provisions do not allow for
modification of the permit to contain different and less
stringent effluent limitations or conditions: Federal has
appealed the Limitations Reopener conditions of the permit on the
grounds that its provisions do not specifically allow for
modification of the permit to contain different and less
stringent effluent limitations or conditions. In particular,
Federal desires that it be absolutely clear that the provisions
of Part III(E) do not limit the provisions of Part III(I) to
modification only for more stringent limitations.
Federal requests that Section III(I) be rewritten as
follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this permit, the effluent limitations
contained in Part I(A) of this permit may
be modified to be less or more stringent
based upon the results of the effluent and
stream monitoring program which the permittee

John Hunter, Esq.
December!21, 1990
Page 7
shall undertake as required by Condition No. 2
of Special Order by Consent WQ No. 84-30 Ad. 2.
13. The provisions of Part V(A), Dioxin Monitoring, and
Part V(B), Dioxin Control Plan, of the permit: As discussed,
Federal contests the Dioxin Monitoring requirements of the permit
set forth in Part V(A) and as they may be modified by the Test
Procedures provisions of Part II(C)(4). Federal believes that
the dioxin monitoring requirements are ambiguous, unclear and
subject Federal to arbitrary and capricious regulatory
requirements. Federal requests that the third sentence in the
first paragraph of Part V(A) be rewritten to read as follows:
If the measurement is below detection limits
the quantity, for purposes of compliance
evaluation, is considered to be zero.
Federal requests deletion of the following phrase currently at
the end of the above -referenced sentence: "unless quantification
below 10 picograms per liter is achieved." Federal believes that
this disputed language renders the dioxin monitoring requirement
for compliance evaluation purposes totally arbitrary and
capricious.
You indicated that DEM would review the contested provisions
and provide Federal with a clarification of the Department's
position. After reviewing the Department's position, Federal
will be able to determine whether to proceed with its appeal of
this particular permit condition.
Federal also requested clarification of the provisions of
Part V(A) which purport to require dioxin monitoring of Landfills
Leachate (if appropriate). We understand that Landfill Leachate
monitoring is not required unless the Landfill Leachate is being
collected by the permittee. Because Federal is not collecting
Landfill Leachate, it is not required to monitor for dioxin in
Landfill Leachate. Federal requests that this provision be
deleted from the permit.
Federal has also contested the provisions of Part V(B),
Dioxin Control Plan, of the permit on the grounds that it is
arbitrary and capricious and in excess of statutory authority to
require Federal to submit a Dioxin Control Plan when no dioxin
has been detected in Federal's discharge and the levels of dioxin
in fish tissue samples from the Cape Fear River below Federal's
discharge do not contain significant levels of dioxin. Federal
should never have been included on the State's 304(1) listings.
If Federal and the Department are able to agree to stay the
litigation of the dioxin effluent limitations requirement and are

John Hunter, Esq.
December 21, 1990
Page 8
able to agree on clarification of the dioxin monitoring -
requirements, Federal is prepared to work with the Department as
we discussed to address the Dioxin Control Plan issue. Any
resolution of this issue must preserve Federal's right to
challenge the requirement for submission of a Dioxin Control Plan
at such timeas the permit appeal litigation may proceed. We
look'forward to discussing this matter with you further.
Federal Paper Board Company appreciates the opportunity to
meet with the Department informally to try to resolve as many
disputed permit conditions as possible. We look forward to your
responselto this letterand to our continued negotiations.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or
require any clarification regarding any matter set forth in this
letter.
With best wishes, I am
cc: Mr. Chuck Wakild
Director - Environmental Affairs
Federal Paper Board Co., Inc.
Leigh L. Stallings, Esq.
Mr. Steve Tedder
bev/wedl
r

c,/ ceSeA,S Pop,(0.,D
cG-C
l-e.*. S 06- G
' a-"`0e7 %i2u•`7a... / —
CLA,GL ,
Cf u w�M/�L
IV/3/k)
cze
LtudziLGt,,s I Q
, • lJl
G( 4- 4 . Gt„t&gU. -f ^ wt(( d'ic`alc-t)
n�
1 J C��i Q5 cxpo a �+ a
(p4-1-
oe .6- i..n((
— -6- -.c c.p(utr_z
n(
Wa.,* CSACLAA12..-, G
aDicikc;^
6ciqw124,Le. 1. .) FAA, t-
Lam, ca G
'�— c(i, u.• , i'�"' ,n,,A sac cr- � e
?AA+ • 6" 7 G L CA

U *442
— 4;Kg_
cow p�
C..cgcitc,A4- !
sLr 6Ltopycr,
•—ij cA•et,Cti
C yv
`C Z_<5
6- 4144- -t mac' .., .g-
"AL,
osaao aug. -L) sic

r.
FILED, PF.F!rr. nc'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA A D P41 0 PEARINGS
COUNTY OF COLU .BUS
(1) Federal
(Your Name)
•
uIay ill 12 ov Ph
Paper Board Company), Inc.
Petitioner. )
)
Dept. of Environment, Healt ,
(2) and Natural Resources (DpH )
Ind Environmental Manage entdOomnnission (EMQ)
(The State Agency or Board about which you are )
complaining) )
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PETITION
FOR A
CONTESTED CASE HEARING
(name of agency)
been harmed by the state agency or board)
issued State-NPDES Permit No. NC0003298, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, with terms, conditions and limitations_,including
without limitation the terms, conditions and limitations set forth on
the attached sheets, which .are unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious,
erroneous, un - • �v Isc
s �g a1$�l ilaahiAPsiuis ants a=Y (jr ty .
(4) (Check all that a l
PP Y}�
Becaul a of these facts, the agency has:
X deprived me of property; RFC,Enfwi,i-)
ordered me to pay a fine or civil penalty; or
—XI _has otherwise substantially prejudiced my rights; and based on these facts the agenci E4 4 1990
exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
Xacted erroneously;
X I failed to use proper procedure;
x I acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
_.:failed to act as required by law or rule.
I hereby ask;for a contested case hearing as provided for by G.S. 150B-23 because the
(3) DEHNR has (briefly state facts showing how you believe you have
PERMITS & E JC!NEERING
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, first being duly sworn, say that this petition is true to my own knowled e, except as to ma
stated on information and belief, and as to those, 1 believe them to be true. g tiers
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
(10) 11 l 3 % 47 p
Date
Si (azure
(12) Notary Public
Title of person authorized to administer oaths
tom►r.c;0m
(5)
it C.'4 r 13 i C� 6
?X'J
- ,41.eZ
Your Signanue Charles Wakild
(7)Director - Environmental Affairs
Federal Paper Boar o., n .
(8) P. 0. Box 8
•
'ftegeittenfiur ddress
(9) Area Code §i
Your Telephone Number
Mail :he original to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P. O. Drawer 11666. Raleigh, N.C. 27604 and mail
a copy to the State agency involved.
H-06

4--
•
Federal Paper Board Company v. DEHNR
PETITION FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING
Page 2, Continuation of Section (3)
1. The inclusion of the months of "April" and "May" in
the Summer Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements in
Part I(A) of the permit.
2. The effluent discharge limitations for BOD, 5 Day,
20°C in Part I(A) of the permit.
3. The effluent discharge limitations and monitoring
requirements for TSS in Part I(A) of the permit.
4. The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen
concentration of 5.0 mg/1 in Part I(A) of the permit.
5. The effluent discharge limitation for Dioxin
(2378 - TCDD) and the compliance date of June 5, 1993 for meeting
said Dioxin discharge limitation set forth in Part I(A) of the
permit.
6. The Schedule of Compliance set forth in Part I(B)
of the a mi p r t.
7. The provisions of Part II(A)(5), Toxic Pollutants,
of the permit.
8. The provision of Part II(B)(4), Upsets, of the
permit to 'the extent
said provisions do not include unintentional
and temporary non-compliance with water quality based permit
effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable
control ofthe permittee within the definition of "Upset".
9. The provisions of Part II(C)(4), Test Procedures,
• of the permit as they apply to the analysis of Dioxin
(2378 - TCDD).
10. The provisions of Part II(D)(1), Change in
Discharge, of the permit.

Federal Paper Board Company v. DEHNR°
PETITION! FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING
Page 3, Continuation of Section (3)
11. The provisions of Part III(D), Groundwater
Monitoring, of the permit.
1.2. The provisions of Part III(E), Limitations
Reopener; of the permit to the extent its provisions do not allow
for modification of the permit to contain different and less
stringent effluent limitations or conditions.
13. The provisions.of Part V(A), Dioxin Monitoring, and
Part V(B
Dioxin Control Plan, of the permit.
jhh/acd/acd7
8961.002
1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State agency named below by depos-
iting os-
iting a copy of it with the United State Postal Service with sufficient postage or by delivering
it to the named agency.
Served on: (14) John C. Hunter, Esq. , General Counsel
•
(15) Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
(agency)
(17) This the
(name)
917 N. Sal ish1vy
(address)
St., Archdale Bldq.
_P?1eigh, M' 27611
/17141--day of
(18)
4444." Por.e„. 69,7/2„0„ Ave.
H-08

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 10, 1990
Mr. M. T. White
Riegelwood Operations
Riege.lwood, NC 28456
Srrb.ject: Permit No. NC0003298
Federal Paper Board Company
Cn l nmhars County
Dear. Mr.. Whi.te:
In accordance wit:lr your application for d1s::ir=rride permit received on June 30,
1988, we are forwarding herewiththe sui jer..t F nt:e. - NPPF,S permit. Th.is permit is
issued pursuant. to the requirements of North Cnrol inn rvneri1 Statute .143-2J.5.1 and
the Memorandum of Agreement between North Cnro1 ipr. And titn r;S Environmental. Protection
Agency dated Pe^,ember (, 1983..
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in
this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to ;m adjudi.catory hearing
upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This
regr.rest must be 'in the form of a written pet:: t.iort, conforming to Chapte.r. 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes, and fit.-'d wi.tir the Office of Administrative Herrings,
Post Office Drawer 13666, Raleigh, North C:nrol inn 27604+. Unless; such demand is made,
this decision shall he final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not t.rnns fr.robl e. Part .I1 , D. 3.
addresses t:he requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of
this discharge.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other: permits
which may be required by the Division of Env i tonnrenta l tt:rragemont; or permits required
by the Division of Land Resources, Costs W Arta Management A(:t or any other Federal or
Local governmentalpermit that may be rrgn i rr•.d .
If you have any questions concerning this porm i t . please contact Mr. Dale
Over.cash at telephone number. 919/7:33-5083.
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Wilmington Regional. Office
Pcludon Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Permit No. NC0003298
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
To DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal. Water. Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
Federal Paper Board Company, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater .from n facility located at
NC Highway 87
in Riegelwood
Columbus County
to receiving waters designated as Cape Fear. River in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance; with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and TIT hereof.
This permit shall become effective December. 1, 1990.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 6,
1993
Signed this day October 10, 1990.
Geore T. .ieLt, Director.
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0003298
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Federal Paper Board Company, Inc.
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate the existing treatment facility consisting of dual bar screens and primary
clarifiers, nutrient addition facilities, 173 acres of aerated lagoons, sludge holding lagoons,
oxygen injection facilities, flow measurement and recording equipment located at NC Highway
87, in Riegelwood, Columbus County (See Part III of this Permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into the Cape
Fear River which is classified Class C-Swamp waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.

1.1
Collard
190 000
FEET :'
c
'~ '`'«+%
15 .
, ..
• •,, y+v.
( ` '•
�6oJ
f 6U�y'�,Z'
e. L �: ririen� t Br
rr Y J•C'ro
-'' 100
anc
ails°
u-�
56
sa
Ir
e
• =q. 60 1 .�
... 1019tL_ ..,-... 11---/-S...
..
34°15' 1 2 230 C00 FEET 1
78°15' '
• "is
- ♦ -
•
-Q-• - •
eel/ J04 -5C.A.C2r
CAPE:yf��
L l�,eili Edut
•-•
/ - "63'
Dark: -Bay .;r ; -
,.,
...:� 3 • �_ ' �: • moo
='.z 4. ` - �.: 'Lookout
0 .- B LIC'e(lOtan .:. -. - - ^- \Tower
; =• -a
• :M1;coad,of --
-.,� Crtetis /rnnch
•ii. _ 9. 4_ •�•
Greenbank
Landing/
-.4144 Tr
•
vl it?
4-2 `. `, it
♦1 ,i
•0�• p�s9
--60
69.4.4
4�i
i •'i$
••► �• =,--.L111I1" - : .-Gg$
Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey
Control by USGS, USC&GS, and USCE
Culture and drainage in part compiled from aerial photographs
taken 1951. Topography by ptanetable surveys 1954
Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum
10,000-foot grid based on North Carolina coordinate system
1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks,
zone 17, shown in blue
Short dashed blue lines indicate elliptical bay outlines
as distinguished on aerial photographs
• • - - - , . � Si
�_-- -
et/ 6PreAtii
•• f4
.
• Sta
hinnii w
Cet
• Ce•
6J\
... _ I�_:t-
1 (LEWIS SWAMP I ld' 6.9 Att. TO LJ.s 17
1:31 680) �� r-•� ; k•..,,,Yr�.1�{1t A 8 Ow 9 3 Ar I.
! it w! t—• .--. - .--.
Wit.
I1
a I,57
Fl I o
r
;lx r�
� :i:, � t1� { .1
0
3000
SCAL1
►PPROZIMATE MEAN
r.,ECLINATt0N, 1454
• 3000
n{O\f V 1 S 0
1` Y �.: .. 1 . . , t
CO': T OUR .11`
LATUM 1S I
THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NA
FOR SALE BY U.S. GEOLOGIC+
A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC M4

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until June 4, 1993, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
TSS
NH3asN
Dissolved Oxygen**
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity***
Pollutant Analysis"'**
Pentachlorophenol*****
Trichlorophenol
Mercury
Lbs/day
Discharge Limitations
Units-- (speclfv)-
Mon. Avg, Daily Max Mon. Avg. Daily MMx.
50.0 MGD
3500.0 7000.0
65720,0 122033.0
7.8
49.2
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Quarterly
Annually
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
Requirements
- Sample -
Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
-*Samale
Location
E
E,I
E,I
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream (Upstream and Downstream samples shall be grab samples)
Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August and September and once per week during the remaining
months of the year.
** The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
*** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 8%; January, April, July and October, See Part III, Condition G.
**** See Part III, Condition H.
***** Monitoring is not required for these compounds if the permittee certifies in writing that chlorophenolic - containing biocides are not used
at the facility.
****** See Part V.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the E, U and D by grab
samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until June 4, 1993, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Dioxin (2378-TCDD)
Discharge Limitations
Other Units (specify)
Mon. Avg, Daily Max Mon. Ava. Daily Max.
Lbs/day
Monitoring
Measurement
Freauencv
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample 'Sample
Type Location
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
U,D
E
E
E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until June 4, 1993, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
TSS
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen**
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity***
Pollutant Analysis****
Pentachlorophenol 7.8
Trichlorophenol 49.2
Mercury
Lbs/day
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Units (specifyl Measurement
Mon. Avg, Daily Max Mon. Avg. Daily Max.
50.0 MGD
7000.0
65720.0
14000.0
122033.0
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Quarterly
Annually
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample *Sample
Type location
Recorder E
Composite E, I
Composite E,1
Composite E
Grab E,U,D
Grab E,U,D
Composite E
E
Grab E
Grab E
Composite E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream (Upstream and Downstream samples shall be grab samples)
Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remaining
months of the year.
** The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
*** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 8%; January, April, July and October, See Part III, Condition G.
**** See Part III, Condition H.
***** Monitoring is not required for these compounds if the permittee certifies in writing that chlorophenolic - containing biocides are not used
at the facility.
****** See Part V.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the E, U, and D by grab
samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until June 4, 1993, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Dioxin (2378 - TCDD)
Lbs/day.
Discharge Limitations
OtherUnits-(specify-)
Mon. • Avg. Daily Max Mon. Ava. Daily Max. Frequency
Monitoring
Measurement
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Requirements
— Samaie
Type
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
U,D
E
E
E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on June 5,1993 and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
TSS
NH3asN
Dissolved Oxygen**
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity***
Pollutant Analysis****
Pentachlorophenol*****
Trichlorophenol
Mercury
Lbslday
Discharge Limitations
- Units - (specify)
Monitoring
—Measurement
Mon. Avg, Daily Max Mon. Avg, Daily Max. Frequency
50.0 MGD Continuous
Daily
65720.0 122033.0 Daily
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Quarterly
Annually
7.8 Weekly
49.2 Weekly
Quarterly
3500.0 7000.0
Requirements
S-a m a 1 e
Type
Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
*Sample
Location
E
E,I
E,I
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream (Upstream and Downstream samples shall be grab samples)
Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August and September and once per week during the remaining
months of the year.
** The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
*** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 8%; January, April, July and October, See Part III, Condition G.
* * * * See Part III, Condition H.
***** Monitoring is not required for these compounds if the permittee certifies in writing that chlorophenolic - containing biocides are not used
at the facility.
****** See P art V.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the E, U and D by grab
samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on June 5, 1993 and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Dioxin (2378 - TCDD)
Lbs/day
Mon. Avg. Daily MaX
Discharge limitations
Other Units (specify)
Mon. Avg. Daily Max.
0.9 pg/I
Monitoring
Measurement
Freciuencv
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample
Type
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
*Sample
Location
U,D
E
E
E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on June 5, 1993 and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Units (specifv)
Mon. Avg, Daily Max Mon. Avg. Daily Max.
Flow 50.0 MGD
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C 7000.0
TSS
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen"
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity***
Pollutant Analysis""
Pentachlorophenol 7.8
Trichlorophenol 49.2
Mercury
Lbs/day
65720.0
14000.0
122033.0
Monitoring
Measurement
FrequencyContinuous
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Quarterly
Annually
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample-
Type
Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
"Sample
Location
E
E,I
E,I
E
E,U,D
E,U,D
E
E
E
E
E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream (Upstream and Downstream samples shall be grab samples)
Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August and September and once per week during the remaining
months of the year.
** The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1.
*** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 8%; January, April, July and October, See Part III, Condition G.
* * * * See Part III, Condition H.
***** Monitoring is not required for these compounds if the permittee certifies in writing that chlorophenolic - containing biocides are not used
at the facility.
****** See Part V.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the E, U and D by grab
samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0003298
During the period beginning on June 5, 1993 and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Lbs/day _ _ Other- Units (specify} -Measurement Sample *Sample
Mon. Avg, Daily Max Mon. Avg. Daily Max. Frequency Tyke Location
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C * Grab U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN) Monthly Composite E
Total Phosphorus Monthly Composite E
Dioxin (2378 -TCDD) 0.9 pg/I Quarterly Composite E

i1C0003298 Part III
Continued
F. This permit shall be modified, or revoked and reissued to incorporate toxicity limitations
and monitoring requirements in the event toxicity testing or other studies conducted on the
effluent or receiving stream indicate that detrimental effects may be expected in the receiving
stream as a result of this discharge.
G. CHRONIC TOXICITY MONITORING REQUIREMENT (QRTRLY)
The permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity tests using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina
Chronic Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document is
8%. The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from
issuance of ;this permit during the months of January, April, July and October. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using
the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.! 27611
Test data sI all be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical
measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response
data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be reopened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.

NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid
test and will require immediate retesting (within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure
to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
H. The permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants annually at the effluent from the treatment
plant. The discharge shall be evaluated as follows: 1) A pollutant analysis of the effluent must
be completed annually using EPA approved methods for the following analytic fractions: (a)
purgeables (i.e., volatile organic compounds); (b) acid extractables; (c) base/neutral
extractables; (d) organochlorine pesticides and PCB's (e) herbicides; and (f) metals and other
inorganics. The Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (APAM) Requirement Reporting Form A
and accompanying memo, to be provided to all discharges affected by this monito.ring
requirement, describes the sampling and analysis requirements and lists chemicals to be
included in the pollutant analysis. This monitoring requirement is to be referred to as the
"Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring requirement" (APAM).
2) Other significant levels of synthetic organic chemicals must be identified and
approximately quantified. For the purpose of implementing this requirement, the largest 10
GC/MS peaks in the purgeable, base/neutral extractable, and acid extractable fractions (or
fewer than i10, if less than 10 unidentified peaks occur) for chemicals other than those
specified on the APA Requirement Reporting Form A should be identified and approximately
quantified asstated in the APAM Reporting Form A instructions. This part (item 2) of the APAM
requirement is to be referred to as the "10 significant peaks rule".
I. The effluent limitations contained in Part I A of this permit may be modified based upon the
results of the effluent and stream monitoring program which the permittee shall undertake as
required by Condition No. 2 of Special Order by Consent WO No. 84-30 Ad. 2.

PART V
Dioxin Monitoring Requirements
A. Dioxin Monitoring
All analysis must be performed using the appropriate method of analysis specified
in Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by High
Resolution Gas Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry, EPA, 1987, (EPA.
Method 8290), or another equivalent analytical protocol approved by DEM. Detection
limits using this method for the purposes of compliance evaluations are considered to
be 10 picograms per liter. If the measurement is below detection limits the quantity,
for the purposes of compliance evaluation, is considered to be zero unless
quantification below 10 picograms per liter is achieved. The dioxin isomer to be
monitored and limited by this permit is 2,3,7,8, TCDD.
Fish tissued analysis will be performed, as a minimum, at one station established
upstream of the discharge and at two stations downstream. The sampling design for
fish tissue monitoring is to be submitted to the Division of Environmental Management
no later that 901days after the effective date of the permit. Upon approval, the
monitoring plan becomes an enforceable part of the permit. All dioxin data collected
as part of this monitoring requirement will be reported within three months after
collection.
The permittee shall perform the following analyses for dioxin in addition to
monitoring the effluent as specified on the effluent pages:
1. Influent to wastewater treatment facility
2. Sludge
3. Landfills leachate (if appropriate
4. Fish tissue analysis
Quarterly GRAB (2378 TCDD)
Quarterly GRAB (2378 TCDD)
Quarterly GRAB (2378 TCDD)
Annually (TCDD and TCDF)
B. Dioxin Control Plan
Within 120 days of the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall submit
to the DEM a dioxin control plan (DCP). The DCP shall present any proposed process
modifications intended to reduce the discharge of dioxins, along with projected
implementation schedules and predicted effects. Additionally, the DCP must also
present the provisions expected to address suspended solids and chlorine minimization
programs. Upon approval by the permitting authority, the DCP implementation schedule
shall become an enforceable part of the permit.

HYDROSCIENCE, INC.
Environmental Engineering and Planning
August 31, 1990
Mr. J. Trevor Clements
Assistant Chief
State of North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street
P.o. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Clements:
Edwin L. Barnhart, P.E.
Peter Duritzo, P.E.
Robert G. Gross, P.E.
5 1990
T E C u .._.... ,..,.i•
0
Included herewith are two corrected copiek of the Cape Fear River
Report. Please destroy the copies previously sent to you. In
reviewing the report we discovered that a mathematical error in our
computing program had distorted model output results. The included
report presents the corrected profiles for the system. We
apologize for any inconvenience that this mistake has caused. We
trust that you will find the new reports to be satisfactory and
consistent.
Withrespect to the specific questions you raised during our
meeting the following comments apply:
1) The volumes actually employed in the model were based on the
trapezoidal method of calculation. A corrected table showing
theseivalues is presented in the new report. You will note
that in each case the depth and cross-section matches that
observed in the river. We also corrected the lower section of
the model to reflect the actual conditions in the wider
sections of the river.
2
3
The dispersion rate used in the model was only tested in the
vicinity of the salt wedge where the dispersion numbers seem
appropriate. We had no method of checking for dispersion in
the upper river. The values were chosen based on conversation
with EPA personnel who had employed the model in similar
situation. We tested the model for sensitivity to the
dispersion numbers by varying these values approximately 100
percent. Changing these numbers did not change the oxygen
profile, so the original numbers were employed for the model.
We have not obtained from your work in the lower Estuary any
additional information concerning the benthic loads that may
be present in the lower river. Therefore we used a load of
.15 gm/m2/day at the end of the system. This was employed to
1273 Sea Island Parkway • St. Helena Island • South Carolina 29920 • [phone]

assist in matching the dissolved oxygen curve in the area.
The benthic load in the upper portion of the system was used
at 0.04 gm/ft2/day. In the actual model the benthic load
simulates not only benthic activity but also any uniform
discharge of loading to the system. We believe that the use
of the low values in the system present a realistic
prospective of the combination of these factors. The benthic
load Wised in the lower estuary, .15 gm/m2/day, is consistent
with observations from the Savannah Estuary and Charleston
Harbor and we believe that this is a good value for use in the
Cape Fear.
4) The report presents a tabulation showing nitrate changes
throughout the river system. No significant nitrate
produFtion is observed. Therefore, we do not believe it is
appropriate to provide a separate analysis of the
nitrification reactions in the system. Whatever nitrogen
reactions occur probably involve biological synthesis and is
incluged as part of the overall biological oxygen demand
profiles.
5) The corrected calculations for Ka are presented in the report.
The variations in stream depth at the point where our velocity
measurements were taken was approximately 2 feet over a 12
foot depth. We used an average depth to calculate the Ka.
This is at variance with what I told you at the meeting and I
was wrong in recalling that we had used the actual depth in
the calculation. The original Ka value reported were part of
the error in our output program. I think you will find the
values that are presently reported are consistent with past
experience and with the physics of the area.
6) The report contains a statistical plot of the dissolved oxygen
which has been observed downstream of the dam during low flow
conditions. For our projections we used a 20 percent value of
5.25 mg/1 and a mean value of 5.7 mg/1 for examining critical
conditions. Since the standards usually talk about a minimum
dissolved oxygen it is more appropriate to use the lower
frequency in doing such projections.
7) Information provided by Federal Paper Board on oxygen addition
and stream profiles are attached to this letter. If you
require any additional information or data please feel free to
contact Mr. Joe Zuncich of Federal Paper Board directly.
I apologize lagain for any inconvenience caused by the submission of
an incorrect report. I hope you will be able to destroy the two
reports that were sent to your previously and replace them with the
corrected report. Destruction of these reports will eliminate the

possibility of confusion in the future. We thank you for your help
in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
)04/did"
Edwin L. Barnhart
President
CC: Mr. Joe Zuncich, Federal Paper Board
Enclosures
ELB/tam

80
7
6
5
DO mg/1 4 —
3 —
2 —
1 --
0
Predicted DO Concentration in the Cape Fear River - Model Calibration and
Verification
0
0•
00
Calibration
♦Verification
J♦♦
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Milepoint
- 1989 Predicted ♦ 1989 Observed — 1987 Predicted 0 1987 Observed

Federal Paperboard Permit Options
1
2
i:
3
� •
p
4
5
IFollow
Effluent BOD Limits
Feasibility
Ease of Compliance
Monitoring
Regulatory Considerations
Water Quality Consideration
3500 #Iday, Summer
7000 #/day, Winter
Federal states that this allocation
is not achievable.
-
•
•Background DO <5.0 at sag:
• Allocation constitutes 21% of
decrease from background DO.
Easy - use existing tracking
system
5000 #Iday, June -Oct
`p‘ 10,000 #/day, Nov -May
Proposed by Federal in
April, 1991, report
Appears feasible; the maximum
pond size is less than 600
million gallons.
Easy - use existing tracking
system
Requires variance from
15A NCAC 2B. 0404(c)
• model predicts additional DO deficit
of 0.3 mg/l at 5000 #Iday.
• Allocation constitutes 28% decrease
from background DO
• Implications of higher loading in
April and May on biota
5000 #/day, April -Oct
10,000 #Iday, Nov -March
Appears infeasible; pond size
increases every year; 9-year
simulation resulted in a 6 billion
gallon surplus.
Easy - use existing tracking
system
• model predicts additional DO deficit
of 0.3 mg/l at 5000 #/day.
• Allocation constitutes 28% decrease
from background DO
• lower impact in April & May than #2
Stage Discharge
Proposed by Federal
Feasible
Difficult - cannot be tracked
using existing system.
"` va Ce_
'• Need to satisfy 15A NCAC 2B. 1
0206(a)(1) - method provides I
equal or better protection for W.Q.
standards.
• Precedent for staged release
• Higher loads under non-7010
conditions (90-95% of time)
DEM Stage Discharge
3500 #Iday, Jun}'
Federal plan in other
months up to 15000 #Iday max
Appears feasible if a
conservation plan is included to
allow for periodic increased
discharge at higher flows.
Difficult - cannot be tracked
using existing system.
• Need to satisfy 15A NCAC 2B.
0206(a)(1) - method provides
equal or better protection for W.Q.
standards.
• Precedent for staged release
• Restricting summer loading results
in higher loads in other months than
under option 4.
• Options 2, 3, 4, and 5 require construction of a pond for load equalization.
5 0oo j - f
75C0 he,, _

7
S
g4
3
2
1-
Cape Fear River Allocation Model. 856 cfs
—•
Without Federal
With Federal
—•
0
0
5
10
15 20
Mlle Point (from Lock & Dam #1)
25
30
7
Allocation Model at 1500 cfs
En 5
11
g4
V 3-
2
1
0
0
1 1
1 1
1, 1
1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1
1,
1
5
1 1
1 1
1
10
1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1,
15 20
Milepoint from L&D #1
25
30
Allocation Model at 2000 cfs
7
6
5
g 4
_ 6fo r.
Too
7000
3
2
1
0 •I
0
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
I I
I$
5
1 1
t I
f 1
10
1 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 20
Milepoint from L&D #1
25
30
7_
6'...
1 5
g 4
Z 3
1 2
a
1-
0--t—}-,
Allocation Model at 3000 cis
-
No
,
use
14,10r
1 1 1 1 ,
, 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
0
, 1
5
, i
1 ,
1 ,
10
1 1 1 1 1 1
15 20
Milepoint from L&D 61
25
30
Ns
tbj

8.00 - -.
7.50 —
D 7.00
O 6.50
6.00
m 5.50
9 5.00
1 4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
Cape Fear River - Calibration Model
10/16/87, With and Without Other Discharges
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
- - Federal Only — All Discharges • Observed
30.0 35.0

Q
3.00
m
9
/ 2.00
I
1.00
0.00
Cape Fear River - Verification Model
1989 Data, With and Without Other Discharges
0.0 5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
- - Federal Only ❑ Observed — All Discharges
30.0 35.0

9.00
8.00
D 7.00
0
6.00
( 5.00
m
g 4.00
/ 3.00
I
2.00
1.00
0.00
Cape Fear River Predicted DO - Calibration Model
Calibration Model With and Without the Federal Discharge
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
30.0
35.0
— With Federal ❑ Observed
— Without Federal - - w/o Federal, low Ks

6.00
5.00
D
0 4.00
m
3.00
9
/ 2.00
1.00
0.00
Ls
Cape Fear River Predicted DO - !989 Conditions
With and Without the Federal Discharge
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
30.0
35.0
Observed — With Federal
— Without Federal - - w/o Federal, low Ks

P
r
e
c
e
d
D
0
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Cape Fear River Wasteload Allocation
Federal Paperboard at 3500 #/day
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
30.0 35.0
— All Discharges — Without Federal - - No Discharges

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Cape Fear River Wasteload Allocation
Federal Paperboard at 3500 #/day
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
30.0 35.0
— All Discharges — Without Federal - - No Discharges

P
r
e
d
c
t
e
d
7.00
Cape Fear River Wasteload Allocation
Sensitivity of Predicted DO to the Black River
6.00 — - -
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
With no discharge
With all discharge
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
30.0
35.0
— With Black River - - Without Black River — With Black River - - Without Black River

6.00 .1_41_01
5.00
D
0 4.00
m 3.00
g
/ 2.00
1.00
0.00
Cape Fear River Predicted DO -1989 Conditions 8050 /r,% , Cedes,(
With and Without the Federal Discharge �
■■
Ll •
.I U `
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
30.0
35.0
f Observed — With Federal
— Without Federal - - w/o Federal, low K's

9.00
8.00
D 7.00
0
6.00
5.00
m
g 4.00
3.00
} 2.00
1.00
0.00
Cape Fear River Predicted DO - Calibration Model
Calibration Model With and Without the Federal Discharge
61S0 417b-i
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
Milepoint
25.0
30.0
35.0
— With Federal
❑ Observed
— Without Federal - - w/o Federal, low Kg

ct a' e),,L(4,17
^

,o"'"4.
A•
W
44 PR0Sti
JAN 2 _, 19C3C
REF: 4WM-FP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
NC Dept. of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RE: Review of NPDES Draft Permit
Federal Paper Board Company, Inc.
Permit No. NC0003298
Dear Mr. Tedder:
RECEIVED
JAN 30 iyyu
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
In accordance with the EPA/NC MOA we have completed review of the
above referenced draft permit and have no objections to the proposed
permit conditions.
Because this facility has been included on a list of point sources
preventing or impairing water quality in accordance with Section
304(1) of the Clean Water Act, our review has also included the
approvability of this permit as an individual control strategy
(ICS). The proposed draft permit appears approvable as an ICS
provided that it is issued by February 4, 1990.
A final decision concerning approval/disapproval will be made by the
Regional Administrator after reissuance of the permit. If the final
permit is disapproved as an ICS, EPA will exercise its authority
under Section 304(1)(3) to issue the required permit.
We request we be afforded an additional review opportunity if changes
are made to the permit prior to issuance, or if significant
objections to the permit are received. Otherwise, please send us one
copy of the final permit immediately upon issuance.
Please contact Bob Wooten at [phone] if you have any
questions.
Sincerely yours,
J
John T. Marlar, Chief
Facilities Performance Branch
Water Management Division
S$ 29 1990
WATER "�!-1iY
2 0
SEC i : iv C£ ,444 J99

FEDERAL PAPER BCPA RCO COMPANY, I.NC.
RIEGELWOOD OPERATIONS
RIEGELWOOD, NORTH CAROLINA 28456
TELEPHONE [phone]
January 16, 1990
Mr. M. J. Noland
North Carolina DEHNR
Suite 714
Wachovia Building
Fayetteville;, North Carolina 28301
Dear Mr. Noland:
fir?
1.77 15.7-jci
JAN 16 1990 :-1
ENV. MANAGEMENT
FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
Re: NPDES No. NC0003298
Draft Permit
We enclose further comments by Federal Paper Board Company on the draft NPDES
permit modification for the Riegelwood bleached kraft mill.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standard
Attached is a letter to Marshall White from Robert Gross, vice president of
Hydroscience, Inc., which discusses the critical issue of the 5.0 mg./1. DO
standard. Mr. Gross's letter also discusses the manner in which the State of
Georgia has dealt with a similar situation in the lower Savannah River. We urge
the Division to consider this and similar alternative approaches to the problem of
the inherent, low DO of the lower Cape Fear River. In our opinion this problem
must be addressed in the development of BOD limits for inclusion in the permit and
in the establishment of the final objective in Federal's water quality program.
Alternate 7Q10 Base for Toxicity Analysis During the Winter Period
Attached
Addition of Oxygen to Cape Fear River
Attached
NPDES Permit Fact Sheet - Previous NPDES Permit Conditions
Item 8. of the Fact Sheet accompanying the
BOD5 - Summer 3500 lbs./day
BOD5 - Winter 7000 lbs./day
We request that these data be footnoted as follows:
*The permittee requested adjudication of these
remains unsettled.
draft permit lists :. �,'`,j
C r 12 1990
CENTRAL F.
permit conditions; this ii�OPY

d
zr
Mr. M. J. Noland - 2 - January 16, 1990
1
We request that this clarification be added to preclude the development of
the impression that these limits were ever acceptable to Federal or that they were
ever in effect.
Reopener Clause
1
We request that Paragraph I, Part III, of the draft permit be rewritten as
follows:
The effluent limitations contained,in Part 1 A of this
permit may be increased based upon the results of the
effluent and stream monitoring program which the permittee
shall undertake as required by Condition No. 2 of Special
Order by Consent WQ No. 84-30 Ad. 2.
Dioxin
Extensive comments and supporting documentation concerning the dioxin issue
are enclosed. As set forth in these comments, Federal believes that the draft
permit should be revised. It is inappropriate for the State to impose a final
numeric limit for dioxin discharges at this time. If North Carolina establishes a
dioxin limit in the permit, it should be an interim limitation. Any dioxin limit
should be set by employing valid scientific information, not the interim North
Carolina standard based on EPA's outmoded water quality criterion. In addition,
any dioxin limit should be consistent with the practical realities of measuring
dioxin.
We stand ready to work with you to develop a permit that is protective of
human health and the environment, based on sound science, and free from
unnecessary requirements.
We have initiated a program of process modifications to minimize the
production of dioxins in the bleaching operations. This program will be carried
to completion regardless of the action taken by NC-DEM concerning the regulation
of dioxin.
MTW/mha
Attachments
Very truly yours,
FEDERAL PAPER BOARD COMPANY, INC.
f 4'64607
M rshall T. White
Director of Environmental Affairs
ocr 12 1990 Lll
CENTRAL FILE COPY

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 14, 1989
MEMORANIDUM
TO: Dale Overcash
THROUGH: Trevor Clements'
FROM: Thomas Stockton15
SUBJECT: Bleach kraft paper mill dioxin limits
Facility
Receiving
Stream
Design Flow
(mgd)
Alpha Cellulose
Weyerhauser - New Bern
Weyerhauser - Plymouth
Federal Paperboard
Ecusta
Lumber River
Neu;;e River
Roanoke River
Cape Fear River
French Broad River
1.80
37
55
50
27.5
QA
(cfs)
867
4300
7674
4980
552
dioxin
limit
(ng/1)
0.004373
0.001066
0.001277
0.000915
0.000196
The Roanoke flow is average flow for the period of record @ Roanoke Rapids, as-
sumes no runoff.
2.7 tt6A L(Lis ccs
D IO Ns (.5
(kove5- .o110)5(t)---, (46. -0, 1111-511 .7-• I Yrz ,j./e
'it.r5pc5
OCT
r3g1---JgsrigN
12 199C
CENTRAL FILE COPY