NC0000272_USEPA_Permit_Coments_19950806

l��fl o UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s
REGION IV
343 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA.GEORGIA 30333
COPY TO:
ALAN RLIMER
DENNIS RAMSEY AUG $ o
AUG ' 'er
s W5 STEVE TEDDER 1
OY �YSSfFORREST4)ES•TALL WATER QUALITYRETURN. RECEIPT REQUESTED .
SECTION
REF: 4WM-PP
RECEIVED
Water. Quality Division
r
Mr. R. Paul Wilms
Director, Division of -Environmental Management AUG 9 1985
North Carolina Department ofNatural Resources
and Community Development Western ReSional.Office
512 North Salisbury Street Asheville, North Carolina
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr s: e
Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 123.44(b)(2), this letter• states the issues and
objections that EPA has to the terms and conditions of the •proposed NPDES
permit" for Champion International Corporation .(NC0000272). A review has been
completed of the permit, your letter of June 18, 1985, and previous correspon-
dence from EPA (February 26, 1985, and April 23, 1985). As detailed below,-
considerable progress has been made in resolving our concerns ,regarding this
permit but several are still unresolved.
Resolved.Issues: "
Our previous comment regarding total dissolved solids has been resolved by
including the reopener clan se in the May 14th permit.
Inclusion of bioassay testing in the permit has adequately addressed our concern.
Additionally, it is my understanding that the State intends to perform additional
chronic toxicity testing as well. I would appreciate written confirmation of
your plans.
After reviewing all of the .material submitted, it is our conclusion that the
temperature variance submitted was not a revision to water quality standards
but was a Section 316(aF determination. It is our opinion that the Final
order issued by the Environmental Management Commission dated October 11, 1984,
adopting the Division of Environment's (DEM) Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law with some modification meets the requirements of a 316(a) determination.
The modification of the DER. recommendation was only that DEM is expected to
perform additional monitoring. If this is contrary to your understanding of
the situation, please let me know.

•Mr. R. Paul Wilms '
Page 2
objections:
EPA objects to the permit limitations related to color on the basis that com-
pliance with Section 301 (b)(1 )(C) of the Clean Water Act has not been adequately
addressed, i.e., color standards in the North Carolina and Tennessee segments
of the Pigeon River may not be met unless the terms of the permit are changed.
We understand that DEM intends to evaluate the instream color level of the
Pigeon River within North Carolina after Champion begins operation of the full
scale color removal facility. We further understand that DEM intends to take
additional action if the color level remains above acceptable levels. However,
at the present time the permit does not provide any basis for how DEM interprets
the aesthetic quality criterion relative to color for the designated use of the
Pigeon River in North Carolina or how DEM will make its determination of whether
additional action is needed. By this, we do not mean that DEM is required -to
set any type of numerical color value for the river, but rather that DEM needs-
to explain using subjective terms, if necessary, the factors to be consiae��
and the methodology to be used by DEM to judge compliance. For example, DEN
map intend to use a panel to determine whe er a co or level meets the
aesthetic quality criterion.
If there is an adequate description of the factors and methodology added to
the permit, DEM, EPA, the company and other interested persons would all have
a basis for determining whether permit compliance had been achieved. This
addition to the permit would resolve EPA's concern on this issue.
In regard to the Tennessee water quality standard, Tennessee has interpreted
their narrative criterion to be 50 color units. ' Based upon EPA's previous
analysis and the 75% color limitation in the permit, any time the untreated color
level exceeds 800 color units at low river flows, the 50 color unit standard at
the state line may be violated. Although the permit indicates that the Environ-
mental Management Commission (EMC) may subsequently modify the color removal
level to require further color removal processes, a directly enforceable limi-
tation is needed. It will be necessary to add a color limitation of 50 color
units measured in the river at the state line to the permit.. The limitation at
the ,state line should be expressed as apparent color. However,. in recognition n
of the fact that the Champion Paper Company may not be the sole cause of
increased colorlevels at the state line, the following stipulation should be
added. 'I£ the apparent color level exceeds 0 color units, an ana ysis or
true color must be performed. If the true color level exceeds 50, then this
would represent a violation of the permit.permit.0 This recognizes that the company s
contribution of color to the river s ased on true color.
The permit indicates that the EMC may order Champion to undertake additional
actions should the demonstration facility prove to be unsuccessful. Our concern
is with the qualifying language, i.e., 'may.' In order to make it clear-that
the effluent limitations are to be achieved to meet water quality standards, the
word 'shall' should be used. —r

Mr. R. Paul Wilms
Page ,3
In addition, we find that your June 18, 1985, response to the Tennessee Depart-
ment of Public Health pursuant to 40 CFR 123.44(c)(2) to be inadequate for the
same reasons given above.
The State of North Carolina or any interested person may request a public
hearing on these objections pursuant to 40 CFR 123.44(e) within ninety (90)
days of your receipt of this letter. If no public hearing _is requested, it
will be necessary for the State to resubmit a proposed permit that resolves the
objections within that same time period of ninety (90) days or the exclusive
authority to issue an NPDES permit will pass to EPA per 40 CFR Sec. 123.44(h).
We will work with you and your staff to the maximum extent to resolve this
issue in an orderly and expeditious manner.
Sincerely yours,
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
CC: See Enclosure

ADDRESSEES:
Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Honorable Jim Sasser
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
M/K Michael H. Byrum
139 Smokey Park Highway
Apartment #4
Ashville, N. C. 28806
Mr. Gary A. Davis
Attorney for Pigeon River Action Group
Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation
Central Appalachian Office
530 Gay Street, Suite 204
Knoxville, TM. 37901
Mr. Tommy Fondren .
94 Tarbell Mobile Home Court
Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514
Mr. Lindsay Jones
Western North Carolina Alliance
Route #1, Box 304
Zirconia, N. C. 28790
Mr. C. D. Mullini:, Cbairnaa — -- -
' Pigeon River Action Group -
.:L r
7 ..:.,•Waynesville, N. C. 28786 -
Mr. Michael D. Pearigen
Asst. Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN. 37219-5025
Mr. Matt Schuster
2922 Poplar Street
Doraville, GA. 30390
Dr. Charles E. Weaver
r ...- Georgia lasti i te. of Technology r
'School of Geophysical Sciences
Old Civil Engineering Bldg.
Atlanta, GA. 30332
J