NC0000272_EPA Letter State-adopted Color Variance_19941129

}-N`Ifo Sr"
'
;�`� J= UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET.N.E. /S
ATLANTA.GEORGIA 30365 /
NOV 29 1994 I-
Mr. A. Preston Howard, Jr. , Director
North Carolina Department of Environment, �S IDJ
Health and Natural Resources OEC 3 1994
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
North OIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MGMNT.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 DIRECTORS OFFICE
Dear Mr. Howard:
This is in reference to the State-adopted variance for the
instream color criterion for the Pigeon River. The variance
was initially adopted by the State on July 13, 1988, and was
continued by the Environmental Management Commission NPDES
Committee on May 12, 1993 . The conditions of the initial
variance require reconsideration by the State during each
subsequent triennial review conducted by the State.
. r
The continuati6n ;of the variance was submitted for EPA
review as a water' quafity standard by letter dated June 11,
1993. The State's request for review included the necessary
certification that the variance was duly adopted and
promulgated in accordance with applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions of the State: _
The variance was submitted for Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) review in conjunction with the triennial review of
water quality standards for the State. On November 2, 1993,
EPA acted on the revisions adopted by the State during the
triennial review, with the exception of the color variance for
the Pigeon River.
Action on the variance was deferred by EPA pending a review
of the variance by the us Fish. and Wildlife (FWS) pursuant to
the provisions of the July 27, 1992 Memorandum of Agreement for
coordination between the EPA, the FWS, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. That review is now complete. The letter
dated March 31, 1994 summarizing the conclusions of the FWS
review of the variance is enclosed for your information: The
conclusion of the' FWS regarding the color variance is -as
follows:
"Based on the .absence of listed.species in the project
area; continuation of Champion International's color
variance.of- 5 o .true-.color---units -at-the Canton Mill :is -not
likely-to, adversely ;impact•. ang;-.:Federally-listed or.•proposed.
species: in the Pigeon.,River:from the discharge location-Ito
the North Carolina/Tennessee state line. Therefore, the
`1i

(2)
requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied.
However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of
the identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered;
(2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which
was not considered in the document; or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected
by the identified action. "
The applicable federal regulation regarding the State's
obligation in the review and reassessment of variances is
contained in 40 CFR Section 131.20(a) which states:
"The State shall from time to time, but at least once every
three years, hold public hearings for the purpose of
reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as
appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. Any water
body segment with water quality standards that do not
include the uses specified in Section 101(a) (2) of the Act
shall be re-examined every three years to determine if any
new information has become available. If such new
information indicates that the uses specified in Section
101(a) (2) of the Act .are attainable, the State shall revise
its standards accordingly. "
This -provision applies to "water quality standards that do
not include the uses specified in Section 101(a) (2) of the
Act. " This includes State-adopted variances from water quality -
criteria for specific water body segments.
Title 40 .CFR..Section 131.20(c) provides, in pertinent part:
"The State shall submit the results of the review, any
supporting analysis for the use attainability analysis. . .
to the Regional Administrator for review and approval. . . "
In she context of the federal regulations, EPA considers
the variance to be an action taken by the State to modify a use
included in Section 101(1) (2) of the Act to require less
stringent criteria. The requirements for such an action are
the same as for any other standards which are required to be
supported by.a use attainability analysis.
The information provided by Champion includes an update of
the previous analysis used as a demonstration of meeting the
provisions of 40 CPR Section 131.10(g) (6) . This portion of the
regulation allows a revision to water quality criteria when
controls more" stringent than those -required by Sections 301(b)
and 306-- of the-Clean Water Act would result in substantial
widespread social and economic impact. The analysis is based
on the configuration of the Cantos Mill prior to the
modernization program, which was recently completed.

(3)
EPA understands that, at the time of the update to the
previous analysis, production and wastewater treatment
operations at the Canton Mill were in a state of flux, and that
no data were available under the modernized configuration of
the mill for: 1) the influent color loadings to the wastewater
treatment facility, (2) the color removal efficiency of the
wastewater treatment operations, (3) actual effluent color
levels, (4) plant economics under the new production scenario,
or (5) the effect of reduced wastewater 'flow on the previous
wastewater treatment operations and in relation to available
space at the current site for future incorporation of
operations specifically designed for removal of effluent
color. Based on our conversations with representatives from
Champion, we also understand that the above information will be
available for at least one year of operation of the modernized
mill after May 1995.
In reaching a determination on the color variance, it is
EPA's determination that the information provided by Champion
and submitted to. EPA by the State is the beat approximation of
the economics and treatment operations of the Canton Mill at
the time that the variance was continued by the State. Also,
new information is not available at this time which is
sufficient to indicate that the statewide color criterion is
attainable in the Pigeon River.
It is EPA's determination that the State's continuation of
the variance complies with Section 303 of the Clean Water Act
and 40 CPR Part. 131. Therefore, EPA is approving the State's
continuance of the variance as a revision to State water" '
quality standards.
We .understand that Champion has announced an intention to
implement anew technology to recycle the bleaching wastewaters
within the operations at the Canton Mill. This step will
significantly reduce wastewater flows and the influent color
loading to the treatment operations, and is consistent with
EPA's position that reasonable progress must be demonstrated
toward meeting the statewide color criterion for the Pigeon
River in order for EPA to accept and approve a continuation of
the color :variance.
Regarding the state's next review of the color variance, it
is EPA's expectation that a detailed analysis of the economics
and treatment operations at the .Ca4iton Mill will be submitted
to the State for consideration in the next triennial review.
Since the previous variance was continued by the State on
May 12, . 1993, the variance should be reviewed and appropriate
revisions be adopted by-the State no later than May 12, 1996.
The analysis must account for new information based on.
operation of the modernized facility, including the following:
(1) influent color loadings-to.the wastewater treatment
facility, (2) color removal efficiency- of the wastewater

(4)
treatment operations, (3) actual effluent color levels, (4) the
economic information necessary to reevaluate the provisions of
the variance pursuant to 40 CFR Section 131.10(g) (6) under the
new production scenario, and (5) the effect of reduced
wastewater flow on the previous wastewater treatment operations
in relation to available space at the current site for
operations specifically designed for removal of effluent
color. The list of treatment technologies should be agreed
upon by the State and EPA prior to initiation of the evaluation
of alternatives. The analysis should also address potential
color prevention technologies in addition to wastewater color
removal technologies.
The analysis should be based on full attainment of the
statewide color criterion in the Pigeon River. Should full
attainment not be demonstrated to be economically achieveable,
the analysis should also address interim levels of compliance
with the statewide color criterion, including but not limited
to: (1) attainment of the statewide criterion at a point
further upstream of the North Carolina/Tennessee state line,
(2) achieving a color level at the North Carolina/Tennessee
state line which is more stringent than the current NPDES
permit requirement, i.e. , less than 50 true color units, or
(3) an instream color level at or near the discharge which will
result in reduced color -levels in downstream segments of the
river.
In order for the above information to be timely and useful
in the nest triennial review, especially relative to-passible
revisions to the variance and further-progress towards meeting
the statewide color standard, EPA is requesting the State of
North Carolina to require Champion International to submit the
above information no later than September 1, 1995. This should
allow Division of Environmental Management staff ample time to
review the information and include a recommendation on any
further continuance of the variance 'prior to the three year
deadline for reconsideration of the variance.
If you have questions regarding EPA's approval of the
Pigeon River color variance or the information outlined for
continuation of the variance during the State's neat triennial
review, please contact me at 404/347-3555, extension 6544.
. Sincerely,
CE
Robert F. McGhee
Acting Director
Water Management Division
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Steve Tedder

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management _
James B. Hunt,Jr.,Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID E I-J N F=11
A. Preston Howard,Jr., P.E., Director
December 19, 1994
Mr. Derric Brown
Environmental Supervisor
Champion International Corporation
-Canton Mill
Box C-10
Canton, North Carolina 28716
Dear Mr. Brown,
The United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has reviewed the color
variance for the instream color criterion for the Pigeon River and determined that
the state's continuation of the variance complies with Section 303 of the Clean
Water Act and 40 CFR Part 131. The EPA recently approved the continuance of the
color variance in a letter dated November 29, 1994 to A. Preston Howard, Jr.,
Director of the Division of Environmental Management. A copy of the letter has
been enclosed for your information.
We are pleased that EPA has approved the continuance of the variance and
attribute much of their decision to the enormous improvements that your company
has made to the Canton Mill. We applaud your efforts and look forward to working
with you in the coming years to ensure protection of the environment is maximized.
I would like to take this opportunity to outline the schedule of major milestones and
to summarize information that should be submitted to us as part of our Triennial
Review of water quality standards. In accordance with the existing variance
agreement, "Champion shall continue to study and evaluate other color removal
technologies and shall report its findings to the Division of Environmental
Management immediately upon discovery and annually on or before April 30 of each
year.„ In its letter of November 29, 1994, EPA has requested that the state require
you to submit specific information to us. I refer you to pages 3 and 4 of their letter 1
for the details of this requested information. In general,you are requested to
provide detailed information on economics and treatment operations at the Canton
Mill. I suspect that you will provide much of this information to us in your report
which is due April 30, 1995. Any information which has been requested and not
submitted as part of this April 30th report shall be due to us no later than
September 1, 1995. After you have had a chance to review the enclosed letter and
scope of information requested, please feel free to call Forrest Westall in our
Asheville Regional Office or me if you have questions.
P.O.Box 29535.Raleigh,North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/10%postconsumer paper

Mr. Derric Brown
December 19, 1994
Page Two
As we have discussed with you in previous conversations, we expect to convene the
NPDES Committee of the Environmental Management Commission(EMC) in early
1995 to begin the variance review process. The NPDES Committee will select
members for a special variance review committee which will have the task of
evaluating technical and economic data and other information submitted on the
color variance issue. We expect to have this special committee assembled in early
1995. Our tentative schedule for other related activities include the following:
• seeking permission from the EMC for approval of the French Broad River
basinwide plan in April 1995,
• submitting our annual status summary report to the NPDES Committee on
color removal at the Canton Mill plant in June 1995,
• submitting a report to EPA on the status of the variance review in
December 1995,
• giving public notice for the Champion permit and variance in late spring or
early summer 1996, and
• issuing NPDES permits for the Pigeon River drainage in October 1996.
I hope that this tentative schedule will be useful to you. We look forward to
working with you in the next phase of the variance review process.
Sincerely,
0011
v�dx—
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Enclosure
cc: Forrest Westall
Paul Davis
Fritz Wagner