NC0000272_Draft Pemit Comments_20220401

STATE OF TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower
312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, nth Floor
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
April 27, 2021
Wastewater Permitting
Attn: Blue Ridge Paper Products Permit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Draft NPDES Permit NC0000272, Blue Ridge Paper Products
Comments — Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
To our colleagues at NCDEQ:
Tennessee has worked collaboratively with North Carolina and EPA for many years to improve the
quality of the Pigeon River and we are pleased that this partnership has resulted in significant reductions
in color between 1990 and 2005. Changes at the mill during that timeframe have improved the ecology of
the Tennessee portion of the river and increased recreational opportunities for both Tennesseans and
visitors. These visitor opportunities have helped the economy of one of the most economically depressed
counties in Tennessee. Nonetheless, additional improvements are needed.
When Tennessee entered into a partnership with North Carolina and EPA in the 1980s, we accepted the
idea of incremental progress towards clean water goals in the Pigeon River. However, it appears to us that
incremental progress is no longer being made, as demonstrated by the last two permit cycles. Rather than
continue historic progress, the new draft permit perpetuates existing water quality impairments and
proposes to declare success by lifting the variance.
Please accept these formal comments from TDEC-DWR on the Blue Ridge NPDES draft permit and the
proposed removal of the existing color variance. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our thoughts
regarding these topics.
The Draft Permit
Section A(8.) Requirements for Color Analysis and Compliance Special Conditions
TDEC appreciates and supports the reopener clause in item #4 of this section, allowing for the permit to
be modified if improvements in color removal technology were to be made available. The related

language in item #7 requiring the permittee to conduct a technical review of color removal technologies
once during every permit cycle and provide a report to the DEQ is also appreciated. According to the
permit fact sheet, a comprehensive review of color removal was last conducted in 2006. If this is correct
another such review is overdue.
TDEC is also supportive of item #6 in this section, avoiding major maintenance outages during the
months of June thru September to minimize color during peak recreational use and lowest river flow. Our
records indicate that lowest flows often occur in September — November, not necessarily coinciding with
highest recreational use. Low river flows can also occur unpredictably at other times of the year.
TDEC requests that this language be strengthened if possible, to avoid major outages during months of
highest recreational use AND periods of low river flow near or below the 30Q5. If such major outages
must be planned well in advance of known low flows, then TDEC would favor including October in the
months to be avoided as well.
Section A(9.) Dioxin Monitoring Special Condition
This section and page 4 of the Fact Sheet state that under this draft the fish tissue sampling requirement
will be reduced to one event every 5 years, with an additional sampling event required if a TEQ
exceedance is noted. TDEC is supportive of this change. The dramatic reduction of dioxins in both the
effluent and Pigeon River fish tissue has been one of the most successful aspects of the mill
modernization, and less frequent fish tissue monitoring at this point is appropriate. However, it appears
that the last fish tissue monitoring was conducted in 2014. If so, TDEC requests that the new permit
specify that the next fish tissue monitoring effort be conducted in the first year of the new permit. If not,
it could conceivably be over 11 years between monitoring efforts, an unacceptably long interval.
Section A(13.) Electronic Reporting of Discharge Monitoring Reports
TDEC requests that a requirement be added to this section for the permittee to additionally submit
monthly DMRs to the following email addresses: [e-mail] and [e-mail].
Tennessee disagrees with several broader aspects of the draft permit.
1. Lack of progress towards clean water. The annual average, monthly average, and daily maximum
color limits in this draft remain essentially the same as the previous NPDES permit. In the permit
fact sheet, North Carolina suggests that since these limits were agreed to by the Technology
Review Workgroup (TRW) as part of the 2010 permit renewal process, these agreed -to limits
would be carried over to the draft 2020 permit. We agree that Tennessee was represented in this
earlier process, but did not envision that these limits should be in place in all future permits or
that the TRW would not meet again in the future.
In EPA's 2010 comments regarding the previous draft Blue Ridge permit, they stated, "The TRW
has historically performed a valuable function in assessing color reduction efforts at the Mill and
providing recommendations to the DWQ. We recommend that the permit include a provision

ensuring that the TRW will assess color reduction technologies and provide recommendations to
DWQ at the end of this next permit term."
There is no mention we could see of the TRW in the new draft permit and we do not believe the
group met during the previous permit period, which gives the appearance that North Carolina
considers that effort to have ended twelve years ago. If true, Tennessee does not consider this to
be in the spirit of the original partnership. At a minimum, evaluation of new color removal
technologies should be shared with EPA and TDEC.
Beyond the work of the TRW, North Carolina's Water Quality Standards in 15A NCAC 02B
.0203 state:
Water quality based effluent limitations and management practices for direct or indirect
discharges of waste or for other sources of water pollution shall be developed by the Division
such that the water quality standards and best usage of receiving waters and all downstream
waters will not be impaired.
North Carolina apparently justifies the absence of additional color removal requirements in the
draft permit on the basis that North Carolina now feels that the water quality standard in North
Carolina is being met. Even if this was true in North Carolina, the water quality standard is not
being met in Tennessee. Thus, the permit does not comply with the rule cited in the previous
paragraph since all downstream waters are not currently protected.
2. Different interpretations of water quality standards. We recognize North Carolina's right to
interpret its water quality criteria and assess its streams. However, there are clear contrasts in
water quality criteria and interpretations between North Carolina and Tennessee.
Regarding color, in the permit rationale North Carolina distances itself from the 50 true color
criterion originally favored by EPA. In fact, the rationale suggests that North Carolina's
interpretation is much higher, but does not state what it is. We consider that debate to be between
EPA and North Carolina, as long as it is recognized that even 50 true color units is higher than
Tennessee's interpretation of the color criterion in a Blue Ridge stream.
It is important to note that Tennessee agreed to 50 color units as an initial Pigeon River
improvement target but never agreed that it represented our water quality criterion.
3. "Objectionable" color is an instantaneous perception by the public. TDEC therefore recommends
that the color limits be based upon individual monthly averages with the application of an
instantaneous daily maximum limit.
4. The flow basis for limits. According to the draft permit, the average concentration limit is only
based on "flow equal to or greater than the 30Q2 of 129 cfs." Tennessee has two significant
issues with this approach.

The first is the generous interpretation of the 30Q2 flow. In the rationale, it is noted that 89.8 cfs
is the actual 30Q2, not 129 cfs. The text notes that North Carolina has the flexibility to choose a
different 30Q2 based on models approved by EPA, but the link provided in the text leads to the
EPA criteria table rather than a discussion of models. TDEC requests additional explanation of
this modeling approach used to derive an alternative flow basis that is 50 cfs higher than the
actual 30Q2 in a stream that has frequent low flows.
Below are the USGS flow data for the Pigeon River at Canton for the last five years.
SS
DRILY Discharge, cubic feet per second
20000
10000
1000
100
40
USGS 03456991 PIGEON RIVER NEAR CANTON, NC
I.. •...' I...
IIL111EN 'IIR
ft.1111h.t 1 Il'I
WII IL
2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020
— Daily naxinun discharge
- Estinated daily naxinun discharge
— Daily nininun discharge
— Daily nean discharge
Estinated daily nean discharge
Period of approved data
Period of provisional data
Only in the very wet year of 2020 did flows not go well below 129 cfs, and in several years, flows
were lower than 129 cfs on a prolonged basis. Color limits should be based on the true 30Q2 for
this stream and we ask that EPA carefully review this provision.
Secondly and more critically, the permit seems to imply that the criterion does not apply if flows
are below the 30Q2. Criteria in Tennessee apply at all flows and it is this provision in the Blue
Ridge permit that directly contributes to the objectionable color levels often noted in Tennessee at
summer and fall low flows. As long as the permit disregards color contributions into the river at
flows below 129 cfs, the water quality criterion in Tennessee will continue to be violated.
As an example of the magnitude of this issue, here are the Pigeon flows in the summer of 2016 as

measured at the USGS gage.
US.7
USGS 034569'31 PIGEON RIVER NEAR CANTON, NC
Discharge, cubic feet per second
F, N
o 0
i o q
40
Jul 01 Hug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01
2016 2016 2016 2016 2016
— discharge Period of approved data
This graph illustrates how long Pigeon flows were below 129 cfs between June and late
November of that year. As we understand the draft permit, color levels in the river during these
low flows are not included in calculations of permit compliance. It is difficult for us to see how
this provision adequately protects water quality in North Carolina or Tennessee.
It is clear that there were substantial periods of time in which the monthly average color limits did
not apply. Data collected at the NC/TN border shows that color in the Tennessee portion of the
river was most objectionable during these low flow periods. The draft permit perpetuates this
downstream condition. The establishment of an extreme drought condition flow level below
which color exceedances will not be considered permit violations may be defensible, however
flows below 129 cfs do not represent rare or unusual conditions but are relatively common.
Note: In one of the support documents, North Carolina referenced the Bowater permit (now
Resolute permit) in Tennessee as another example of a permit that allowed a similar provision
regarding color as does the Blue Ridge permit. The Resolute permit for the discharge of color into
the Hiwassee River, a much larger river in a different ecoregion than the Pigeon, is different in
two notable ways. First, the amount of color change compared to an upstream point is lower than
50 true color units. Secondly, color limits apply at all flows, unlike the Blue Ridge permit.

Removal of the Color Variance
It is clear that the annual average, monthly average, and daily maximum color limits in this draft remain
the same as the previous NPDES permit. We acknowledge that the removal of the variance is a water
quality standards issue to be decided between North Carolina and EPA.
However, TDEC disagrees with the technical basis for removal of the variance as stated in the NPDES
Fact Sheet (pages 10-12) and in the appended "Reevaluation Rationale." The explicit or tacit acceptance
of this rationale by EPA would create dangerous precedents for all NPDES programs in the interpretation
of color standards, and perhaps other water quality standards as well.
The proper basis for lifting the variance would seem to be that it is no longer needed because the water
quality criterion for color is no longer being violated. Tennessee does not believe North Carolina has met
the burden of proof needed to demonstrate this point. North Carolina's position appears to be that the
color criterion is being met because:
1. The draft permit is protective. As stated previously, the permit's reliance on monthly averages of only
certain data, use of an extremely generous low -flow basis to derive limits, combined with the permit's
disregard for color levels in the river both in North Carolina and Tennessee when flows are less than 129
cfs, makes it very difficult for us to concede that point.
2. Interpretation of criteria. As stated previously, North Carolina's handling of flow in the permit gives
the appearance that the agency believes the color criterion does not apply if the flow is below the 30Q2
flow. If that is the case, we do not agree with either that interpretation of criteria or that the variance
should be removed on that basis.
3. Noncompliance with existing permit. EPA's ECHO database indicates that Blue Ridge is not in
compliance with its permit, but it does not provide any information on specific violations. Additionally,
the permit fact sheet acknowledges noncompliance with color limits. TDEC requests specific compliance
data covering the past permit cycle. Is this noncompliance due to violations of permit limits or is it related
to other compliance issues such as failure to submit reports? In our view, even if the permit were
protective, noncompliance would erode the argument that the water quality standard is currently being
met.
4. Recreational use is not impacted by color. The rationale cites increased recreation in the Tennessee
portion of the river as partial justification for removing the variance in the North Carolina part of the
river. Nonetheless, the color of the Pigeon River in Tennessee is still found objectionable by citizens in
the area and continues to be on the Tennessee 303(d) list due to color.
5. Aquatic life is not being impacted by color. This may be true, but has it been demonstrated? The
Pigeon River is listed on North Carolina's 2018 303(d) List as impaired. The permit rationale states that
the documented aquatic life impacts are likely due to other pollutants. A more detailed discussion of the
biological data including direct comparisons to upstream or reference conditions is requested. We
understand that a University of Tennessee study concluded that the river near Canton supported a

"Balanced and Indigenous" aquatic life population, as required by its 316(a) temperature variance, but
North Carolina lists the river in the same segment as impaired for aquatic life support.
TDEC disagrees with the practice of averaging annual color values as a method of comparison to color
standards. The rationale on page 11 of the Fact Sheet states that since the average of all color data points
from 2014-2018 during all flow conditions is 41 color units, "long-term compliance" of the NC color
standard has been met. The practice of averaging values with such a wide range allows instream values to
often exceed the water quality standard by a considerable margin.
The Fact Sheet also states on page 11 that the average of true color at the Tennessee state line over the
same period is 21 color units. TDEC acknowledges that exceedances of our narrative color standard at the
border are not continuous but occur for the most part during lower river flows. Averaging high flow
winter/spring color values in with the lower flow values obscures the fact that true color in the Tennessee
portion of the Pigeon is sometimes measured in the 30-40 color unit range.
It was EPA's position just a few years ago that there was insufficient basis for removing the color
variance. Given that there have been no significant changes in the color discharge or the condition of the
river since that time, on what basis would EPA consider removing the variance now?
In closing, TDEC does not dispute that the performance of the mill is among the best in the world and
recognizes the difficulties of operating a mill of this size and complexity on a small Blue Ridge river.
There is also no doubt that Tennessee has enjoyed significant improvements in water quality, ecological
recovery, and recreational opportunities from the mill modernization. However, 40 CFR 122.4(d) states
that no permit may be issued "when the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with the
applicable water quality requirements of all affected states." The upper 5 miles of the Pigeon River in
Tennessee (TN06010106-001_4000) remain listed as recreationally impaired due to color from sources
outside state borders, based upon occasional high color values observed at lower river flows. This listing
and Tennessee's interpretation of its narrative color standard will not change if EPA chooses to accept
removal of the color variance in North Carolina.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the permit.
Sincerely,
fi,711--Alpe
Jennifer Dodd
Director
Tennessee Division of Water Resources