NC0000272_NPDES_Hearing_Officer_Report

Hearing Officer's Report on the
Renewal of NPDES Permit NC0000272, a Color Variance, and a Temperature Variance for
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton, NC,Facility
This report is presented to the NPDES Committee of the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission and the Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
INTRODUCTION
On August 3, 2001, notice was published in the North Carolina Register, requesting public
comment on NPDES Permit NC0000272, a color variance, and a temperature variance for Blue
Ridge Paper Products in Canton,North Carolina. A public hearing was held on September 6,
2001, at the Tuscola High School in Waynesville,North Carolina. The comment period closed
September 13, 2001. As Hearing Officer, I conducted the public hearing,toured the Blue Ridge
Paper facility, visited points upstream and downstream of the Pigeon River, including the
Fiberville Bridge and the CP&L hydroelectric plant where the Big Creek and the Pigeon River
converge.
Approximately 127 people attended the public hearing and about 50 attendees provided oral
comments. Attendees and speakers represented Blue Ridge Paper Products,the City of Canton,
Haywood County,North Carolina,the City of Newport, Tennessee, Cocke County, Tennessee,
the State of Tennessee, environmental interest groups, and concerned citizens of both states.
FACILITY BACKGROUND
Blue Ridge Paper was founded in 1999,when employees purchased the plant from Champion
International. Blue Ridge Paper operates in nine US locations. Three of the locations, including
the corporate headquarters, are in western North Carolina.
The mill has played a significant role in the history of western North Carolina both economically
and environmentally. Placed into operation in 1908, the mill is now the single largest private
employer in western North Carolina, employing 1,375 at the Waynesville and Canton facilities.
The company via its operation and employment of area residents infuses approximately $300
million annually to the local economy and $8 million annually to the area in taxes, withholdings,
etc.
The Canton facility processes both hardwood and softwood pulping operations. It is an
integrated, elemental chlorine free (ECF)bleached kraft pulp mill with oxygen delignification
and bleach filtrate recycle. The mill treats the Town of Canton's wastewater along with its own
wastewater. Wastewater is discharged into the Pigeon River, a Class C stream in the French
Broad River Basin.
Around 1990, Champion International, as owner of the facility, initiated a$300 million dollar
project termed the"Canton Modernization Project". This project eliminated the use of elemental

chlorine and implemented significant changes to both the pine and hardwood bleaching lines.
Prior to the Modernization Project,the mill was permitted to discharge 48.5 MGD. Since
completion of this project, the flow has been reduced to typically less than 26 MGD with a
permit capacity of 29.9 MGD. Color loading has also been reduced by about 90 percent since
the late 1980s and about 50 percent since 1994.
PERMIT AND VARIANCE HISTORY
As Champion International, the facility's operation led North Carolina and Tennessee citizens,
environmental interest groups,the States of North Carolina and Tennessee, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to voice their concerns in the 1980s about the plant's
environmental impacts. The following timeline unfolded:
July 13, 1988 Champion was granted a variance from North Carolina's narrative water quality
standard for color(i.e., "no objectionable color" (citation))which, at that time, the
US EPA interpreted to be 50 color units.
1989 The EPA subsequently assumed permitting authority for the facility, and after a
series of litigation actions issued an NPDES permit.
1994 The EPA returned permitting authority to NC's Division of Water Quality.
Dec. 1996 North Carolina issued a final NPDES permit to Champion
Jan. 1997 The State of Tennessee formally objected to North Carolina's permit decision and
negotiations began between EPA,North Carolina, Tennessee, Cocke County,
Newport, Tennessee, and Champion.
Nov.1997 The American Canoe Association and the Tennessee Environmental Council
intervened in the case.
Dec. 1997 A 26 page Settlement Agreement was reached and the NPDES permit was issued
shortly thereafter. The Agreement established many actions some of the key
components are as follows:
➢ the EPA-chaired Technology Review Workgroup (TRW)that includes
representatives from the State of Tennessee, the State of North Carolina, the
US EPA Headquarters, EPA Region IV, and EPA-contracted pulp and paper
experts. The TRW's charge was to evaluate the Canton facility's design and
operation, identify and evaluate possible technology and work practice
improvements, and recommend options for achieving additional color
reductions. ,
➢ the Joint Watershed Advisory Committee and a Community Advisory
Committee to foster collaboration and public input/outreach.
➢ the EPA Technology Team comprised of Donald Anderson (Chair, EPA

Headquarters), Karrie-Jo Shell (EPA Region IV), Dan Bodien(EPA
Contractor), Paul Davis (Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control),
David McKinney (Tennessee Wildlife Resources), David Goodrich (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality), Forrest Westall (North Carolina Division
of Water Quality)
2001 The Clean Water Fund of North Carolina,American Canoe Association, Western
North Carolina Alliance, Dead Pigeon River Council, Appalachian Voices,
Tennessee Environmental Council, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project,
Dogwood Alliance, and National Forest Protection Council requested Blue Ridge
Paper consent to a third party evaluation of the facility. Co-funded by these
parties and performed by Dr. Norm Liebergott,the evaluation provided very
valuable information for the EPA's Technology Team, TRW, and the Division of
Water Quality in the development of a draft permit.
June 2001 EPA's Tech Team reviews Dr. Liebergott's report and makes recommendations to
the TRW.
July 2001 The TRW makes recommendations to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality.
Historically,this permit has centered around four main issues emanating from the facility's
wastewater discharge: color, temperature, oxygen consuming wastewater, and dioxin.
Color
As established in the Agreement, the color variance strategy has been based on the facility's
performance after implementation of economically, technically, and operationally feasible
technologies. This variance strategy remains in place today because the Canton facility cannot
comply with North Carolina's narrative color standard without adverse economic impacts.
[NOTE: The majority of commenters at the public hearing expressed that they did not wish to
cause the plant economic hardship leading to closure.] The TRW continues to play an integral
role in determining economically feasible technologies to reduce color and ultimately eliminate
the need for a variance.
The mill, using the EPA recommended gross margin test, has determined that compliance with
North Carolina's color standard would place undue economic hardship on the company based on
its current financial situation. As stated in General Statute 143-215.3(e)(2) a variance is
appropriate if:
"Compliance with the rules, standards, or limitations from which variance is
sought cannot be achieved by application of best available technology found to
be economically reasonable at the time of application for such variances, and
would produce serious hardship without equal or greater benefits to the
public..."

Temperature
The temperature variance was initially issued in 1984. Since then, the variance has been
reviewed during each Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards in North Carolina. DWQ
considers temperature one of several factors affecting the aquatic community downstream of the
facility. At this time temperature impacts cannot be delineated from the impacts of other
pollutants. Blue Ridge Paper submitted a Balance and Indigenous Species Study on the Pigeon
River on June 1, 2001. Though DWQ scientists had concerns about some of the reports
conclusions, they concluded that temperature alone was not prohibiting a balanced and
indigenous species downstream of the mill and that continuation of the temperature variance was
appropriate. DWQ scientists are hopeful that as other pollutant loadings are reduced,
temperature effects can be evaluated more effectively.
Oxygen Consuming Wastes
An EPA-approved (QUAL2E)model predicted that even a BOD5 loading equivalent to 5.0 mg/L
oxygen at 29 MGD effluent discharge rate would not be protective of the instream water quality
for dissolved oxygen. Since Blue Ridge Paper cannot comply with such stringent limitations, an
instream method of oxygenating the river water was implemented to protect the river's dissolved
oxygen level. This instream oxygenation system is only operated whenever flow/environmental
conditions in the river determine that such actions are necessary.
Dioxin
Elevated levels of dioxins were found in fish tissue in the Pigeon River in the late 1980s.
Though furans were also detected, the levels were below advisory thresholds (when viewed as
furans independent of dioxins) and were an order of magnitude below the dioxin levels.
Subsequently,North Carolina issued fish consumption advisories for sport fish, catfish, and carp
in the river and Walters Lake downstream. The Canton facility has not discharged detectable
levels of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in its effluent to the Pigeon River since 1989.
Dioxin in fish tissue has declined. In August 2001, the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Health lifted the fish consumption advisory for all species in the Pigeon River
and for all species except carp in Walters Lake. The State of Tennessee continues to post a
precautionary fish consumption advisory for carp, catfish and red breasted sunfish for its portion
of the Pigeon River.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Input to Recommendations
Of the 48 public hearing speakers, roughly 60 percent of the commenters expressed disapproval
with the conditions in the draft permit. Opposition focused primarily on the color variance
conditions. The main concerns expressed were that the color conditions were not aggressive
enough and not consistent with the EPA Tech Team Report,the Bleach Environmental Process

Evaluation and Report(a.k.a. the Liebergott Report), and the 1997 Settlement Agreement.
The Division also received public comments on the temperature variance, dioxin, biochemical
oxygen demand, nutrients, and instream monitoring conditions.
A total of 53 written comments, 190 post cards, and a petition signed by 690 individuals were
received. These comments generally mirrored the public hearing comments and were primarily
opposed to the continuation of the color variance beyond 2006.
The Hearing Officer has also reviewed the August 3, 2001, draft permit noticed as well as
associated documents, including the previous NPDES permit, a fact sheet on the draft permit, the
Technology Team Report, the TRW Report, the Liebergott Report, information provided by Blue
Ridge Paper during the September 6 site visit, and other relevant documents supplied by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Recommendations on the Color Variance
The color impacts of this facility's effluent discharge, on the Pigeon River have been extremely
serious and documented for decades. However, Blue Ridge Paper has made great strides and
unsurpassed investments as a pulp and paper facility to reduce the color of its effluent in the past
decade. Dr. Liebergott's comparative study with comparable North American facilities and one
Finnish facility showed that the Canton facility performs very well in terms of effluent quality.
Even though the Canton facility performs very well,the fact remains that the Pigeon River is not
well-suited for an industry of this type and size. The river's limited assimilative capacity cannot
manage the effluent as well as larger receiving waters found at some other paper plants. That is
why this NPDES permit renewal and color variance requires further advancements in the
facility's technological performance and work practices with the goal of removing the variance
by close of the permit's term.
Differing views have been expressed by parties about the initial baseline color limit, and the
technological and economic feasibility of the EPA Tech Team's recommended three-level
hierarchy of improvements.
Initial Baseline Color Limit. The current 48,000 pounds/day effluent color limit is based
on statistical analyses of the actual performance after taking into account that the mill is
not at full production. When analyzing the data, the TRW used only data that were
representative of the mill at full production. The TRW then evaluated the 95%
confidence interval when establishing their recommendation. Based on the TRW
recommendation, DWQ set the annual average permit limit at 48,000 pounds/day. The
difference between the TRW recommendation and the comments indicating a level of less
than 45,000 pounds/day of effluent color is because the TRW analyses accounted for the
fact that the mill was not at full production for much of the analytical period (due to
operational problems with the Number 19 paper machine). The baseline color level
proposed in the draft permit is consistent with the permitting strategy used in the 1997
Settlement Agreement and the existing NPDES Permit. Therefore, it is reasonable that

the annual average effluent color limit at the beginning of the pen-nit cycle be set at
48,000 pounds/day.
Technical Feasibility. It should be noted that Dr. Liebergott's identification of new
technologies is routinely tempered by statements regarding the uncertainty about how
feasibly the facility can accommodate the technology. Unlike constructing new facilities,
this operation potentially offers significant challenges in not only making new technology
compatible with the older operations but also compatible with characteristics of wood
processed, characteristics of the product mix and physical barriers based on size and
orientation of equipment. It was most helpful for the EPA Tech Team to categorize the
technologies as high, reasonable,and low certainty, and this permit follows that template
of confidence in its design and schedule.
Economic Feasibility. Some parties have pressed for faster and broader implementation
of color reduction technologies than presented in this permit. However, to honor the
public's and the employees'/owners' desire to keep Blue Ridge Paper financially viable,
it was necessary to stage implementation in a manner that would not put the employee-
owned company in any financial risk as it approaches its 100 percent employee
ownership goal in 2003.
The public has shown great initiative with their constructive comments, collaborative efforts, and
financial support for the Liebergott study. Blue Ridge Paper has demonstrated its support both
through investment in environmental improvements and through public outreach. The States
and US EPA have shown their commitment and collaborative efforts through committee-based
technical reviews and stakeholder facilitation. The stakeholders' actions should give all people
great pride in their accomplishments to date and in their determination to make the Pigeon River
clean enough to enjoy and share while sustaining the local economy. The hearing officer was
most moved by the spirit of cooperation voiced by the public and environmental interest groups
when they said they did not wish to close the employee-owned plant or hurt the local economy.
Rather, they wish to co-exist with the facility while continuing to improve the quality of life
along the river in North Carolina and Tennessee. Keeping this spirit of cooperation in mind, the
following additions and revisions to the draft permit are made. The Hearing Officer urges all
interested parties to not only comply with these permit conditions but to strive to surpass them
with continued cooperation, ingenuity, and innovation.
1. Insert a statement that it is the goal of this permit for Blue Ridge Paper to attain
compliance with the North Carolina narrative color standard (15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(f))
at the Fiberville Bridge by close of the permit's term in 2006. The Division of Water
Quality estimates that in 2006 when the reductions required in this permit are achieved,
the Pigeon River's water at the Fiberville Bridge will most likely meet the State's
narrative color standard of no objectionable color. [for additional discussion on the use
of the color standard, see pg. 4 - Appendix D]
2. Continue the Technology Review Workgroup and the EPA Tech Team as long as the
color variance is required. Their recommendations should be fully addressed in any

variance or permit-related action during the permit's term.
3. Insert a statement indicating that the Division strongly recommends that Blue Ridge
Paper continue to facilitate public relations with all the different parties. In the event, that
the color reductions achieved over the term of this permit are insufficient to remove the
color variance by the end of the permit cycle, it is strongly recommended that a second
independent evaluation of the Canton mill be conducted, towards the end of the permit
cycle (2006). Ideally, this evaluation would be co-sponsored by third party interest
groups and the Blue Ridge Paper Product's Canton mill, similar to the 2001 Liebergott
study.
4. Use 48,000 lb/day as the baseline annual average effluent color for the start of the permit
as recommended by the TRW. The current 48,000 lb/day effluent color limit is based on a
statistical analysis of the actual performance after taking into account that the mill was
not at fully operational. [for additional discussion, see pg. 4—Appendix DI
5. Clearly state that the role of the 32,000—39,000 lb./day and the 40,000—42,000 lb./day
color range in the variance is not a permit limit; rather it is a clause to trigger reopening
of the permit. If the final effluent color limit, which will be set only after implementation
of the"Highest Certainty" items and the "Reasonable Certainty" (or equivalent) items,
fails to fall at least within these ranges set in the condition, the permit would be reopened
for public comment. If the performance of the mill results in a limit within or better than
these two color ranges, the permit would not be reopened and the performance attained
would become the limit that is effective on the date stipulated in the color condition.
6. Clearly describe that the methodology for determining the final effluent color limit is
based on the performance of the mill after implementation of the identified technologies.
The final effluent color limit implemented at the end of the permit cycle, is set only after
all the"Highest Certainty" items and "Reasonable Certainty" (or alternative technology
that will achieve similar color reductions) items have been implemented. After
implementation of these items,the Division(based on the recommendation of the
Technology Review Workgroup) will set a final effluent color limit based on a statistical
analysis of the performance of the mill.
7. Explicitly require the permittee to implement all of the"Highest Certainty" items
identified in the EPA Tech Team Report by October 1, 2003.
8. Revise the permit's first interim color goal to be within the range of 40,000 to 42,000
pounds per day by December 1, 2003. (This is a required reduction of 6,000 to 8,000
pounds per day (12 - 16%) from the 48,000 pounds per day baseline.) This range better
reflects the EPA Tech Team report. If the goal is surpassed then DWQ should set the
permit limit to equal the actual annual average pounds per day achieved. The new color
limit should be based on an evaluation of facility performance.
9. Explicitly require the permittee to evaluate the implementation of all the"Reasonable

Certainty" items in the EPA Tech Team Report by October 1, 2005.
10. Revise the permit's second interim color goal to be within the range of 32,000 to 39,000
pounds per day by December 1, 2005. Explicitly state that this is an additional required
reduction of 3,000 to 8,000 pounds per day above the December 1, 2003, performance
level (totaling an 18-33%reduction from the baseline). This range better reflects the
EPA Tech Team report. If the goal is surpassed, the State should set the permit limit to
equal the actual annual average pounds per day achieved.
11. Explicitly describe the reporting,public participation, decision-making, and enforcement
process, if necessary, should the facility be unable to comply with the permit's 2003 and
2005 color reduction conditions.
12. Require the permittee to include, at a minimum,the following treatment and/or disposal
processes in its evaluation of the CRP waste stream: land application, commercial
incineration, and solidification for land disposal. If these or any other technology proves
feasible on a portion or all of the waste stream, Blue Ridge Paper should be required to
implement these technologies. Additionally, it is recommended that the final permit
revise the submittal date for the evaluation of color reduction technologies associated
with the CRP waste stream to December 1, 2004, so that this waste stream can be
evaluated by the Technology Review Workgroup for additional color reductions by the
end of the permit cycle.
13. After submittal of the March 1, 2006, report(evaluating compliance with North
Carolina's color standard), the Division of Water Quality should evaluate the report and
other pertinent data and determine whether Blue Ridge Paper complies with North
Carolina's color standard.
14. It is strongly urged that the Community Advisory Committee continue to function
throughout the life of the permit.
Recommendations on the Temperature Variance
15. Reissue the temperature variance as recommended in the draft permit. The facility
continues to reduce pollutant loading; therefore, re-evaluation of the aquatic community
should be conducted after achieving additional pollutant reductions.
Recommendations on Monitoring
16. The permit should require that samples collected at the Fiberville Bridge be collected at
the midpoint of the bridge in order to obtain a worst case sample.
Recommendations on Dioxins and Furans
17. As per the State of Tennessee's comment,the permittee should continue full range dioxin

and furan monitoring on the effluent of the WWTP until such time that fish consumption
advisory for the Walters Lake is lifted or the effectiveness of the effluent guidelines on
elimination of dioxin and halogenated organic compounds can be evaluated.
OTHER ISSUES
Balanced and Indigenous Species Studies and Statewide Evaluation_of Impacts of dischargers
with 316E Temperature Variances
Part of the requirement for 316(a) variance eligibility is the Balance and Indigenous Species
study. Currently,the Division does not evaluate the statewide impacts of these variances; rather
the Balanced and Indigenous studies are reviewed generally independent of each other during
permit renewal for dischargers with 316(a) temperature variances.
The actual study methodology is an agreement between the State and the permittee based on each
individual site. The Division has adopted a site-specific approach when approving the study
methodology because of the high degree of variability in the benthic and fish communities for
the different receiving waterbodies (i.e. lakes versus rivers versus estuaries).
Recognizing that a site-specific approach is appropriate, it is recommended that the Division
develop a general protocol for assessing thermal impact within one year, with periodic
evaluations of these discharges. It is also recommended that the Division prepare a biennial
compilation of sites with temperature variances. This compilation should include summaries of
methodologies used and a profile of the site-specific conditions for each variance.
Phosphate Limits for A11 Dischargers in the Pigeon River Watershed
The Division is scheduled to conduct biological data for the French Broad River Basin (including
the Pigeon River) in 2002. After collection, DWQ will assess the data(including chlorophyll a
data) in order to obtain a use support rating. Thereafter, DWQ will conduct public workshops in
2004, in order to obtain public input. These workshops are designed to identify areas of concern
and/or public interest. It is recommended that this issue be addressed during the basinwide
planning process. Individuals are encouraged to get involved in the basinwide planning process
and provide these concerns and any additional concerns to the Division at these workshops.

Recommendations and Response to Comments
NC0000272
Introduction
On the evening of September 6,2001, a Public Hearing was held to discuss the renewal of National Pollutant Discharge
EIimination System (NPDES)permit NC0000272 for the Blue Ridge Paper Products(formerly Champion)Canton mill,as
well as the color and temperature variances contained in the permit. The hearing was held at the Tuscola High School
Auditorium in Waynesville,North Carolina,and was well attended by parties both supporting and opposing the draft permit.
The approximately 127 people who attended the hearing represented many constituencies,including the State of Tennessee,
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Blue Ridge Paper Products,the City of Newport(Tennessee), Cocke County
(Tennessee),Haywood County(North CaroIina),the City of Canton(North Carolina),environmental groups and concerned
citizens.
During the public hearing,48 people commented on the mill,the draft NPDES Permit,color variance and/or the temperature
variance. Generally, all of the speakers were in supportive toward the efforts of Blue Ridge Paper Products(BRPP)to reduce
pollutant loading in its discharge. Approximately 60%of the comments opposed conditions proposed in the draft permit.
Opposition to the draft permit primarily focused on the color conditions. The main concerns expressed by those opposed to
the draft was that the color conditions were not aggressive enough and not consistent with the EPA Tech Team Report,the
Bleach Environmental Process Evaluation and Report(Liebergott Report)and the 1997 Settlement Agreement. During the
Hearing the Division also received comments on the temperature variance,dioxin,biochemical oxygen demand,nutrients and
instream monitoring conditions.
Color Recommendations
I. Insert a statement that it is the goal of this permit for Blue Ridge Paper to attain compliance with the North Carolina
narrative color standard(I SA NCAC 2B .0211(3)(0)at the Fiberville Bridge by close of the permit's term in 2006. The
Division of Water Quality estimates that in 2006 when the reductions required in this permit are achieved,the Pigeon
River's water at the Fiberville Bridge will most likely meet the State's narrative color standard of no objectionable color.
[for additional discussion on the use of the color standard,see pg.4-Appendix D]
2. Continue the Technology Review Workgroup and the EPA Tech Team as long as the color variance is required. Their
recommendations should be fully addressed in any variance or permit-related action during the permit's term.
3. Insert a statement indicating that the Division strongly recommends that Blue Ridge Paper continue to facilitate public
relations with all the different parties. In the event,that the color reductions achieved over the term of this permit are
insufficient to remove the color variance by the end of the permit cycle, it is strongly recommended that a second
independent evaluation of the Canton mill be conducted,towards the end of the permit cycle(2006). Ideally,this
evaluation would be co-sponsored by third party interest groups and the Blue Ridge Paper Product's Canton mill,similar
to the 200I Liebergott study.
4. Use 48,000 lb/day as the baseline annual average effluent color for the start of the permit as recommended by the TRW.
The current 48,000 Ib./day effluent color limit is based on an statistical analysis of the actual performance after taking
into account that the mill is not at full production.[for additional discussion,see pg.4—Appendix D]
5. Clearly state that the role of the color range in the variance is not a permit limit;rather it is a clause to trigger reopening
of the permit. If the final effluent color limit,which will be set only after implementation of the"Highest Certainty"
items and the"Reasonable Certainty"(or equivalent) items,is outside of the range set in the condition,the permit would
be reopened for public comment. If the performance of the mill results in a limit below the color range,the permit would
not be reopened and the limit would become effective on the date stipulated in the color condition.
6. Clearly describe that the methodology for determining the final effluent color limit is based on the performance of the
mill after implementation of the identified technologies.The final effluent color limit implemented at the end of the
permit cycle, is set only after all the"Highest Certainty" items and"Reasonable Certainty"(or alternative technology
that will achieve similar color reductions)items have been implemented. After implementation of these items,the
Division(based on the recommendation of the Technology Review Workgroup)will set a final effluent color limit based
on a statistical analysis of the performance of the mill.
7. Explicitly require the permittee to implement all of the"Highest Certainty"items identified in the EPA Tech Team
Report by October 1,2003.
10/9/2001 1 of 6

Recommendations and Response to Comments
NCO000272
8. Revise the permit's first interim color goal to be within the range of 40,000 to 42,000 pounds per day(ppd)by December
1,2003, as per the State of Tennessee's comment. (This is a reduction of 6,000 to 8,000 ppd(12- 16%) from the 48,000
ppd baseline.) This range better reflects the EPA Tech Team report. If the goal is surpassed set the permit limit to equal
the actual annual average pounds per day achieved. The new color limit should be based on an evaluation of facility
performance.
9. Explicitly require the permittee to evaluate the implementation of all the"Reasonable Certainty"items in the EPA Tech
Team Report by October 1,2005.
10. Revise the permit's second interim color goal to be within the range of 32,000 to 39,000 ppd by December 1,2005,as
per the State of Tennessee's comment. Explicitly state that this is an additional reduction of 3,000 to 8,000 ppd above
the December 1,2003,performance level(totaling an 18-33%reduction from the baseline). This range better reflects
the EPA Tech Team report. If the goal is surpassed, the State should set the permit limit to equal the actual annual
average ppd achieved.
11. Explicitly describe the reporting,public participation,decision-making,and enforcement process, if necessary,should
the facility be unable to comply with the permit's 2003 and 2005 color reduction conditions.
I2. Require the permittee to include,at a minimum,the following treatment and/or disposal processes in its evaluation of the
CRP waste stream: land application,commercial incineration,and solidification for land disposal. If these or any other
technology proves feasible,Blue Ridge Paper should be required to implement these technologies.
13. After submittal of the March 1,2006,report(evaluating compliance with North Carolina's color standard),the Division
of Water Quality should evaluate the report and other pertinent data and determine whether Blue Ridge Paper complies
with North Carolina's color standard.
14. It is strongly urged that the Community Advisory Committee continue to function throughout the life of the permit.
Comment:
Color conditions are not aggressive enough and not consistent with the EPA Tech Team Report,the Bleach Environmental
Process Evaluation and Report(Liebergott Report),and the 1997 Settlement Agreement.
Findings:
After analysis of the comments received(spoken and written),there appear to be very few differences among the various
color recommendations. The actual color reductions required in the draft permit are consistent with the comments received.
However,the main differences result from different starting points,misinterpretation of the draft permit requirements and
misinterpretation of the permitting strategy.
The color condition in the draft permit is consistent with the methodology outlined in the 1997 Settlement
Agreement;however,the color condition does not explicitly define the color requirements. Not explicitly
defining the color conditions could be the reason for the misinterpretation and confusion by different
parties in their various interpretations of the color condition and its requirements. After reviewing the
1997 Settlement Agreement and the color condition,it is clear that the conditions of the color
variance are consistent with the intent and methodology used in the 1997 Settlement Agreement.
Comment:
Many of the comments centered on the range set for the final effluent color limit. Most of the comments suggest that the
range is too high to drive progress. Also, it is a disincentive to require reopening of the permit if the mill performs better than
expected.
Findings:
The range in the permit is not a permit limit;rather it is a clause to reopen the permit. The final effluent color limit will be
set only after all the"Highest Certainty" items and"Reasonable Certainty"(or alternative technologies that will achieve
similar color reductions)items have been implemented. After implementation,DWQ(based on the recommendation of the
TRW)will set a final effluent color limit based on analysis of the performance of the mill. If the final effluent color limit is
outside of the range set in the condition,the permit will be reopened for public comment.
10/9/2001 2 of 6

Recommendations and Response to Comments
NC0000272
The actual numerical range for the reopener clause was established based upon the recommendations of the TRW,EPA Tech
Team Report,the Liebergott Report and set in order to encompass the concerns of different parties.
Based on the findings that the range is not a limit and is intended to include the recommendations of different parties,the
Iower end of the range should be modified to 32,000 pounds/day. Modifying the range to 32,000--39,000 pounds/day would
better represent the recommendations of the different parties.
The comment regarding reopening of the permit as a disincentive(if the mill performs better than anticipated)is correct.
However,the concern is giving BRPP equal opportunity to contest the limit if set outside of the final color range. BRPP has
agreed to waive this opportunity,therefore the color condition should account for the possibility that the mill will perform
better than expected without any disincentives. Specifically,it is recommended not to reopen the permit if DWQ(based on
mill perfonnance and the TRW recommendations)sets a limit below 32,000 pounds/day,
Comment:
Require Bleach Filtrate Recycle Reliability Improvements and all the"Highest Certainty"items.
Findings:
The color condition currently indicates that all"Highest Certainty"items are required. In order to avoid misinterpretation
and address the concerns expressed at the Hearing,the color condition should explicitly direct the permittee to implement all
the"Highest Certainty" items.
Comment:
The first reduction in the annual average color limit should be revised to 6,000—8,000 lb/day.
Findings:
To properly address this comment a review of the draft and final EPA Tech Team report,comments submitted to the draft
EPA Tech Team Report,TRW recommendations,and the Bleach Environmental Process Evaluation and Report was
conducted. The EPA Tech Team report recommends a color reduction of greater than 7,400 pounds/day based on
implementation of the"Highest Certainty"items. The draft color condition recommended an initial reduction of 6,000
pounds/day. DWQ based this value on the TRW recommendations that implementation of the EPA Tech Team's Report on
the potential color reductions was possible.In the Technology Review Workgroup recommendations for the draft permit it
was noted...
"the difference between"technological likelihood"and"regulatory limit"is an important
distinction that must be considered in"enforcing"permit conditions"
further the Technology Review Workgroup noted...
"that the options identified in the Tech Team Memorandum as having the"highest certainty" ...
should be implemented first and the permit/variance should reflect a very specific level of
reduction".
Additionally, in the development of the 6,000 pounds/day initial reduction,DWQ took into account the Liebergott Report
where it was noted...
"It is very difficult, if not impossible,to predict color reduction from process optimization,as the
individual bleach stage flow numbers are already very low and the variability is difficult to
correlate to process variables"
and the BRPP comments to the draft EPA Tech Team Report where it was noted:
"the draft final EPA tech team effluent color reduction estimate is too high and is not reasonably
achievable. In 2000 there was approximately 12,000 pounds per day of color from all black liquor
sources(excluding CRP). Based on previous studies conducted at the Canton Mill by Duke
University graduate students,an average of 64%of brown color was removed across the simulated
wastewater treatment plant. A 5,000 pound per day final effluent color reduction as shown in the
draft Tech Team Report would require 13,900 pounds of influent color treated at the average level
of 64%. There is not 13,900 pounds of influent brown color available;therefore,it is
unreasonable to achieve a>5,000 pound per day effluent color reduction."
Though the value set by DWQ for the initial color reductions is appropriate based on the TRW recommendations and the
available information, it does not provide an opportunity for BRPP to meet the expectations of the TRW. Therefore,it is
10/9/2001 3 of 6

Recommendations and Response to Comments
NC0000272
recommended that the initial reduction adopt the range established by the State of Tennessee and then set the color limit
based on performance after implementation of the"Highest Certainty"items.
Comment:
The condition should require that the second 3,000—8,000 pounds/day reduction be in addition to the first reduction.
Findings:
The color special condition already implies that the first and second reductions are additive. The condition should explicitly
define that the second 3,000—8,000 pounds/day reductions are in addition to the first 6,000—8,000 pounds/day reductions.
Comment:
The Technology Review Workgroup should be maintained.
Findings:
The draft color special condition continues the role of the TRW as recommended by the TRW.
Comment:
The permit limit effective at the start of the permit cycle should be based on actual performance,which indicates that the mill
is currently achieving an annual effluent color of less than 45,000 pounds/day.
Findings:
The current 48,000 pounds/day effluent color limit is based on statistical analyses of the actual performance after taking into
account that the miII is not at full production. When analyzing the data,the TRW used only data that was representative of
the mill at full production. The TRW then evaluated the 95%confidence interval when establishing their recommendation.
Based on the TRW recommendation DWQ set the annual average permit limit at 48,000 pounds/day. The difference between
the TRW recommendation and the comments indicating a level of less than 45,000 pounds/day of effluent color is because
the TRW analyses accounted for the fact that the mill was not at full production for much of the analytical period(due to
operational problems with the Number 19 paper machine).The baseline color level proposed in the draft permit is consistent
with the permitting strategy used in the 1997 Settlement Agreement and the existing NPDES Permit. Therefore, it is
reasonable that the annual average effluent color limit at the beginning of the permit cycle be set at 48,000 pounds/day.
Comment:
The appropriate way to review the reports on BRPP from a regulatory standpoint is in terms of volume of receiving water.
Findings:
With regard to color,the permit and variances continue to be water quality-driven,but based on economically feasible
technology/performance and the reduction of color in the mill rather than end-of-pipe treatment. By working to reduce color
in this manner,a cleaner Pigeon River can be obtained without jeopardizing the financial status of the mill. In implementing
this permitting strategy it is important for DWQ to understand how the mill is performing so that the necessary permit
conditions and requirements can be best implemented. The benchmarking already conducted has been extremely valuable.
The analyses showed that the BRPP mill is currently one of the environmentally best-performing mills in the world. The
requirements already stipulated in the draft permit,together with these recommendations,will require the BRPP mill to set a
new standard for environmental performance. No mill has ever been required to achieve this level of performance,and there
is considerable uncertainty associated with the implementation of the identified technologies.
Comment:
At least a 40%reduction is required to comply with North Carolina's color standard.The 40%reduction referenced in the
comments is based on the EPA's interpretation of North Carolina's color standard. This assumes 50 color units at the
Fiberville Bridge.
Findings:
AIthough using 50 color is reasonable for use in quantitative analysis predicting compliance with the standard,the subjective
nature of color is such that it is difficult to pinpoint the exact number that will represent acceptable conditions. Therefore,the
Division of Water Quality cautions against unequivocally equating a numerical standard to compliance with the narrative
standard. For example,prior to the current permit cycle,it was concluded that if Blue Ridge Paper(then Champion)could
achieve 50 color units at the state line,that the Tennessee color standard would be met. Currently,the Pigeon River at the
state line is generally less than 25 color units;however,some still contend that the Pigeon River at the state line is not
10/9/2001 4 of 6

Recommendations and Response to Comments
NC0000272
complying with Tennessee's narrative color standard. Therefore,the Division of Water Quality maintains its position that the
narrative color standard is appropriate for a parameter as subjective in nature as color.
Comment:
There were numerous comments that the color variance should not be granted beyond 2006.
Findings:
The goal for all dischargers with a variance is to eliminate the need for the variance and,if that is not possible,to minimize
the area impacted. The only way to eliminate the color variance is for BRPP to comply with North Carolina's water quality
standard(i.e.no objectionable color). The need for this variance will be dictated to a large extent by the mill's performance.
DWQ has every expectation that by the end of this permit cycle BRPP will be in a position to remove the variance.
However, it is not currently possible to definitively state whether the color variance will still be needed in 2006.
Temperature Variance Recommendation:
Re-issuance of the temperature variance is recommended. The BRPP mill continues to reduce pollutant loading,therefore
reevaluation of the aquatic community should be conducted after achieving additional pollutant reductions.
Comment:
Based on the assumption that the temperature variance is illegal,BRPP should be required to conduct a comprehensive and
independent Balanced and Jndigenous Species Study within one year. The entity conducting the study should be agreed upon
by all parties to the 1997 Settlement Agreement,
Findings:
The Temperature Variance for BRPP was initially issued in 1984. Since that time,the Variance has been reviewed during
each Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards in North Carolina. The Triennial Reviews are submitted to and approved
by EPA. The draft permit continues the requirement of conducting a comprehensive and independent Balanced and
Indigenous Species Study within the term of the permit as part of the Triennial Review process. DWQ concurs with the
reissuance of the temperature variance since temperature is one of several factors affecting the aquatic community
downstream of the mill. At this time temperature impacts cannot be delineated from the impact of other pollutants.
Therefore,the appropriate course of action is to re-evaluate the aquatic community after additional pollutant reductions.
Since all the pollutant reductions required by the NPDES Permit will not be achieved until the end of the permit cycle,the
study should be conducted near the end of the permit term.
Instream Monitoring Recommendation:
The permit should dictate that samples collected at the Fiberville Bridge should be collected at the midpoint of the Bridge in
order to obtain a worst-case sample.
Comment:
Elimination of all monitoring at River Mile Station 55.5 is not acceptable,as instream monitoring at Fiberville and Hepco is
inadequate to assure characterization of instream impact of color in the mill effluent.
Findings:
The instream monitoring program proposed in the draft permit is based on changes within the basin since the monitoring
program was originally established. Over the term of the existing permit,the Town of Clyde has removed its discharge. The
only potential major source of color between Fiberville and Hepco is Richland Creek. Since there are no other major sources
of color between the Fiberville bridge and the Hepco station,monitoring at these two sites is appropriate for monitoring the
impact of Richland Creek.
Additionally,this comment was made assuming that there is incomplete mixing at the Fiberville Bridge. However,complete
mixing is achieved at Fiberville Bridge,except under extreme high flow conditions.Confusion exists on this matter due to
the influence of the relatively small Beaver Dam Creek,which enters the Pigeon River just upstream of the Fiberville Bridge.
At the Fiberville Bridge the flow from Beaver Dam Creek has not achieved complete mixing and the near shore area of the
Pigeon River is substantially clearer than the rest of the Pigeon River transect.
10/9/2001 5 of 6

Recommendations and Response to Comments
NCO000272
Dioxin Recommendation:
Because of the high Level of concern,the permittee should continue full range dioxin monitoring on the effluent until such
time that the fish consumption advisory for dioxin is lifted for Walters Lake or the effectiveness of the effluent guidelines on
elimination of dioxin and halogenated organic compounds can be evaluated.
Comment:
Full range dioxin monitoring should be required.
Findings:
Full range dioxin monitoring was not proposed in the draft permit due to the long history of non-detectable levels at the mill,
the continued reduction of dioxin levels in fish tissue and the implementation of the revised effluent guidelines for the pulp
and paper industry.
One of the primary goals for the effluent guidelines developed by the EPA is the elimination of dioxin and halogenated
compounds from the bleach plant's effluent. However,the effectiveness of these guidelines at the BRPP mill have not been
established. Therefore,in order to ensure public confidence full range dioxin monitoring should continue until the problem
has been eliminated(i.e.the fish consumption advisory is completely lifted)or the effectiveness of the effluent guidelines on
the elimination of dioxin and halogenated compounds can be evaluated.
Programmatic and Otter Issues:
Balanced and Indigenous Species Studies
Comment:
A uniform requirement for Balanced and Indigenous Species Studies should be required for all permitted dischargers with
temperature variances in North Carolina within the next two years,followed by a statewide evaluation of impacts,and action
to modify or remove variances as indicated.
Findings:
Part of the requirement for the 316(a)variance is a Balance and Indigenous Species Study. The Balanced and Indigenous
study is addressed during every permit renewal. The actual sampling plan is an agreement with the State and the permittee
based on each individual site.
Phosphate Limits for All Dischargers in the Basin
Comment:
In order to fully protect the water resources in low flow conditions,the Division must consider implementation of phosphate
limits for all dischargers in the basin,including appropriate biological treatment to remove more of this nutrient from the
discharge stream.
Findings:
The Division is scheduled to conduct biological data for the French Broad River Basin(including the Pigeon River)in 2002.
After collection,DWQ will assess the data(including chlorophyll-a data)in order to obtain a use support rating, Thereafter,
DWQ will conduct.public workshops in 2004,in order to obtain public input. These workshops are designed to identify areas
of concern and/or public interest. It is recommended that this issue be addressed during the basinwide planning process.
Individuals are encouraged to get involved in the basinwide planning process and provide these concerns and any additional
concerns to the Division at these workshops.
Study offlll North Carolina Discharges with Suhstantial Conductivity
Comment:
DWQ should undertake a study of all discharges with substantial conductivity and consider implementation of limits if this is
found to be adding to impacts due to color and temperature.
Findings:
Conductivity is a general measure of inorganic pollution. Conductivity data is used by DWQ to assess the impacts from
dischargers on the receiving stream. For industrial dischargers in North Carolina where inorganic pollution is a concern,
DWQ requires conductivity monitoring upstream and downstream of the discharge point. This data is evaluated and
10/9/2001 6 of 6

Recommendations and Response to Comments
NCO000272
reviewed during permit renewal for potential impacts by the discharge. This evaluation is used to ensure that the permit
limits for individual pollutants and chronic toxicity is protecting water quality in the receiving stream.
The text of this document is a complete summary of my recommendations,based upon the comments received at and after
the Public Hearing and my findings regarding those comments.
Hearing Officer
10/9/2001 7 of 6