NC0000272_Hearing Officer Report_20220401

HEARING OFFICER REPORT
for
Renewal of NPDES Permit NC0000272 and
Continuation of 316(a) Temperature Variance
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Canton, NC
This report is presented to the Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
INTRODUCTION
This Hearing Officer Report summarizes the major issues raised through the public hearing
process, as well as the Hearing Officer recommendations for the NPDES Permit renewal and CWA
316(a) temperature variance. The Director of the Division of Water Quality will take final action
on these recommendations.
A separate Hearing Officer Report will focus on the Hearing Officers' recommendations pertaining
to the proposed color variance removal. The NPDES Committee of the Environmental
Management Commission will take final action on these recommendations.
FACILITY BACKGROUND
The facility was established in 1908 by Champion International to produce pulp. Blue Ridge Paper
acquired ownership of the mill in May of 1999. In 2007, the facility was purchased by the Rank
Group and now operates as a subsidiary of Evergreen Packaging.
The mill has played a significant role in western North Carolina. The mill is the single largest
employer in western NC, employing approximately 1,200 people at the Waynesville and Canton
facilities. The company's annual operating expenditure is in excess of $450 Million centered in the
western NG'TN local economy.
The Canton facility processes both hardwood and softwood. 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 waterbody in the French Broad River Basin.
Around 1990, Champion International initiated a $300 million upgrade referred to as 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 34.0 MGD. Color
1

loading has also been significantly reduced by about 90 percent since the late 1980s and about 50
percent since 1994.
PERMIT AND COLOR VARIANCE HISTORY
Concerns raised over the facility's wastewater discharge in the 1980's led to the actions listed
below. Primary concerns have generally been focused on color, dioxin, and temperature.
1988 Champion International was granted a variance from North Carolina's narrative
water quality standard for color.
1989 Following litigation, the EPA subsequently assumed permitting authority for the
facility and issued an NPDES permit
1994 The EPA returned permitting authority to NC's Division of Water Quality.
1996 NC issued a final NPDES permit to Champion
1997 The State of TN formally objected to the NC permit decision and negotiations
began between EPA, NC, TN, Cocke County (TN), City of Newport (TN), and
Champion. The American Canoe Association and the TN Environmental Council
subsequently intervened in the case. A Settlement Agreement was reached and the
NPDES permit was issued shortly thereafter. The Agreement established:
• the EPA -chaired Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) that includes
representatives from the State of TN, the State of NC, 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 staff from EPA Headquarters, EPA
Region 4, EPA Contractors, Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control,
Tennessee Wildlife Resources, and North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
2001 The Clean Water Fund of NC, 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 that Blue Ridge Paper
consent to a third party evaluation of its operations. Co -funded by these parties and
performed by pulp mill expert Dr. Norm Liebergott, the evaluation provided very
valuable information for the EPA's Technology Team, TRW, and the Division of
2

Water Quality in the development of a draft permit renewal. The TRW makes
recommendations to the NC Division of Water Quality based on Dr. Liebergott's
report. In August, Notice is published in local newspapers requesting public
comment on the NPDES Permit, a color variance, and a temperature variance for
Blue Ridge Paper Products. In September, a public hearing is held at the Tuscola
High School in Waynesville, North Carolina. In October, the Environmental
Management Commision granted a variance from North Carolina' s narrative water
quality standard for color to Blue Ridge Paper. In November, NC issues a Final
NPDES permit to Blue Ridge Paper.
2008 The TRW makes recommendations to the NC Division of Water Quality based on
Dr. Liebergott's 2006 Report Update.
2009 In January, DWQ makes a presentation to the NPDES Committee on Blue Ridge
Paper history, facility and stream improvements, color variance, and permit
renewal. On November 18, Notice is published in Asheville Citizen Times
requesting public comment on the Draft NPDES Permit NC0000272, a color
variance, and a temperature variance for Blue Ridge Paper Products in Canton,
NC.
2010 On January 25, a public meeting is held in Newport, Tennessee, followed by a
public hearing at the Tuscola High School in Waynesville, North Carolina on
January 26. The comment period closed February 25, 2010.
On May 26, the Final Permit was issued, it continued the Color Variance and the
Temperature Variance.
PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC RECORD
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, a public hearing was held on April 14th, 2021,
regarding the proposed removal of the color variance along with the proposed NPDES permit. An in -person
hearing was originally proposed for January 20th, 2021, but was rescheduled as Tennessee legislators
requested time to work with their constituents in order to address their concerns as well as possibly visit
sampling sites downstream of Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC. Notice of the proposals and the original
hearing was published in the December 151, 2020 North Carolina Register (Volume 35, Issue 11), and notice
of the proposals and rescheduled hearing was published in the February 16, 2021 North Carolina Register
(Volume 35, Issue 16). On January 15th, 2021 and April 8'11, 2021, a news release about the public hearing
was sent to media statewide as well as parties who voluntarily signed up to receive it, such as attorneys,
businesses, and citizens. In addition, a social media post, which contained the same information as the
January 15, 2021 news release, was posted on NCDEQ's Twitter and FaceBook page twice on January 15,
2021 and once on January 16, 17, 19, and 21, 2021. On January 27, 2021, an announcement of the public
hearing was sent to the DWRPublicNotices List serve. Information about the public hearing was also
published on January 27, 2021 in the Asheville Citizen -Times, The (Waynesville) Mountaineer, and The
Smoky Mountain News (notices are attached).
3

Mr. Scott Vinson, a Supervisor of the Raleigh Regional Office, served as hearing officer for the portion of
the public hearing concerning the permit renewal. 97 people registered online to attend the public hearing
and 93 people actually attended the hearing (list of attendees and registered persons attached). Registered
attendees at the hearing who provided information regarding their affiliation represented entities ranging
from US EPA; water -based recreational companies, organizations, and users; academia; entertainment
industry; environmental and regulatory interest groups; municipalities; farms; photography business; legal
firms; consulting companies; State of Tennessee and State of North Carolina environmental agencies;
citizens, residents, and property owners; the media; and Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC.
General information about the hearing as well as the proposed permit and proposed removal of the color
variance was followed by DWR presentations with detailed information about the proposals. Public
comments on the proposals were taken after the DWR presentation. Written comments were accepted for
the proposed NPDES permit and proposed removal of the color variance from December 1st, 2020 through
April 30th, 2021.
MAJOR ISSUES RAISED AND DWQ RESPONSES
Listed below are the major issues raised through the public hearings and written comments, and the Division
staff responses to those issues. This report only addresses issues related to the Draft Permit, separate report
addresses issues related to the Color Variance.
Comment:
Temperature: Over 8,500 fish were killed in the summer of 2007 from an extremely hot discharge from the
paper mill. This hot water discharge did not violate the temperature permit limits at the mill, because their
limits rely on a monthly average, which allows wild swings in the temperature of the discharge, and
potential fish kills.
Recommendation: The Department of Environmental Quality should set a daily average limit for the mill
to ensure that aquatic life is protected and future fish kills are avoided.
Response:
The University of Tennessee studies in 2014 indicated that Pigeon River below the discharge contains
balanced and indigenous population of fish and macroinvertabrates and DWR biologists concur with these
conclusions. The previous studies by University of TN had the same conclusions. In addition, during the
last renewal the delta T for the permit (upstream and downstream temperature) was reduced from 13.9
degrees Celsius to 8.5 degrees Celsius based on the actual mill performance evaluation conducted by EPA.
Therefore, there is no need to make additional changes to the temperature standards. The large fish kills
during the summer 2007 were largely attributed to the exceptional drought and did not occur before or after
that year. In 2007 fish kills at other locations were also reported.
Furthermore, the temperature has been historically regulated as a monthly average limit in all North Carolina
wastewater permits. The Blue Ridge Paper operation does not produce wastewater with significant
fluctuation in the temperature as evidenced by the discharge monitoring reports. However, the DWR will
change the limit to the Weekly Average to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
Comment:
Dioxin: Reduction in dioxin fish monitoring in the draft permit is being proposed. Current monitoring
requires monitoring 3 times in 5 years, but the new draft permit reduces that to once every 5 years. This is
4

problematic for two reasons. The most recent sampling conducted in 2014 still shows dioxin in fish tissue,
and therefore monitoring on at least the same schedule should be continued until dioxin is no longer
present in fish tissue samples. Secondly, the permit renewal cycle is many years overdue, the last fish
tissue sample was taken over six years ago. That means, if new sampling is conducted only once in the
next five years, that could mean that we only have one sample in II years.
Recommendation: DEQ should maintain the same sampling schedule of three times within every five
years.
Response:
Elevated levels of dioxins were found in fish tissue in the Pigeon River (around the late 1980s).
Subsequently, a fish consumption advisory was issued for sport fish, catfish, and carp. The Canton Mill has
not discharged any detectable levels of 2,3,7,8 TCDD to the Pigeon River (since 1989) and dioxin in fish
tissue continues to decline. Most fish consumption advisories in North Carolina and Tennessee were
removed in 1998 and 2002. The last fish advisory for Common Carp in Waterville Lake was removed on
January 7, 2007. There are no fish advisories in the Pigeon River at this time.
The May 2010 NPDES Permit (the last permit issued) for the Blue Ridge Canton Mill required three (3)
additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance. During the sampling years between 2008-2013 the
concentrations in fish tissue fillets were below the NC DHHS 4 ppt TEQ [toxic equivalency] action level
for fish consumption advisory. In 2014, TEQ values were below detection for channel catfish for both
sampling Stations; however, in common carp, TEQ values were 9.619 ppt for Station 4A and 2.928 for
Station 4B. The TEQ results for common carp fillets in 2014 and 2007 could be anomalies, or could indicate
that some fish are present in the population with relatively higher TEQ values.
EPA conducted a High Volume dioxin sampling in the Pigeon River in 2014 and concluded that "the most
potent of congeners in the series, 2,3,7,8 TCDD, was not detected in dissolved samples at the reporting
limit of 0.0012 parts per quadrillion at any station".
During the previous permit renewal all sampling results showed results below TEQ action level. Since the
fish dioxin concentration have been reduced steadily during the last several decades and the facility had no
dioxin detection in it's effluent since 1989 and the EPA High Volume dioxin sampling results, the fish tissue
sampling requirement in the permit will be reduced from 3 times/5 years to 1 time/5 years. However, if any
sampling result shows a TEQ exceedance, the facility shall conduct an additional round of fish sampling.
In addition, the Dioxin congeners in the discharge will be monitoring on the annual basis. Only fish tissue
monitoring is being reduced to once.•5 years.
Comment:
Fecal Coliform: The mill not only processes its own waste, but also serves as a wastewater treatment plant
for the town of Canton. Violations for fecal coliform have been frequent in the last decade with Mountain
True documenting at least 25 permit violations, sometimes in excess of 250 times the safe limit for fecal
coliform. The Mill has also commonly violated its permitted standards for total suspended solids and
biological oxygen demand.
Recommendation: DEQ should require significant improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to
ensure the river and downstream river recreation users are protected from harmful and dangerous levels of
bacteria in the river.
5

Response:
Blue Ridge Paper Products treats all domestic wastewater from the Town of Canton in addition to industrial
wastewater produced from mill processes. The acceptance and treatment of a town's domestic wastewater
by an industrial treatment process is atypical. An agreement to disinfect the town's wastewater prior to it
being introduced to the facility's treatment process exemplifies the inherent complexity in addressing fecal
coliform at the facility. Responding to and addressing fecal coliform exceedances at this facility necessitates
a collaborative approach coupled with an in-depth understanding of wastewater chemistry and engineering.
DWR believes we have applied an appropriate tiered enforcement strategy in response to the fecal coliform
exceedances and violations. The last fecal coliform permit violation was documented February 2019.
Comment:
Chloroform: DEQ is proposing to allow the mill to increase their discharge of chloroform, a possible
carcinogen. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to reduce pollution discharges until all waters are fishable
and swimmable. In this instance, not only is the discharge not decreasing, but the mill will be allowed to
discharge even more cancer causing chemicals into the Pigeon River. The 2010 permit allowed for
chloroform discharge allowances of 5.1 lbs.'day or 8.6 lbs•day monthly. The 2021 proposed permit ups
those limits to 6.27 lbs.'day (as a monthly average) and 10.5 lbs'day (daily maximum).
Recommendation: DEQ should reduce discharge allowance for chloroform, not let the paper mill pollute
more.
Response:
The Chloroform limits in the permit are the Technology Based Limits on the internal outfall, they are based
on the EPA Effluent Guidelines in 40 CFR 430 Subpart B. Wastewater discharged from the internal outfall
is being treated by the wastewater treatment system. The facility is not violating nationwide Chloroform
water quality criteria in the Pigeon River. Typically, the facility is discharging less than 3.5 microgram/Liter,
which is significantly less than the water quality criterion of 60 microgram/Liter. The average concentration
of the chloroform in the discharge is 1.75 microgram/Liter.
However, the DWR recommends reducing Chloroform limits to the level implemented in the previous
permit. The same have been done for AOX (adsorbable organic halides) limits, Pentachlorophenol limits,
Trichlorophenol limits, and TSS limits.
Comment:
Bad taste: The water in the river has bad taste.
Response:
The facility discharges a number of chemical compounds that might have bad taste. Phenols are commonly
cited as causes of bad taste in the paper mill effluent. The color consists primarily of lignins and tannins that
don't contribute to bad taste. There are numerous black water streams in the state with very high
concentration of lignins and tannins, much higher than in the Pigeon River. Nevertheless, taste issues have
not been reported in those areas.
Comment:
Color: Color consists of dangerous chemicals.
Response:
The color consists primarily of lignins and tannins, these are natural compounds. There are numerous black
water streams in the state with very high concentration of lignins and tannins, much higher than in the Pigeon
6

River. These streams support fish and macroinvertebrate communities unless there are other limiting factors
present.
Comment:
Flow increase: Increase of flow from 29.9 MGD to 34.0 MGD will have a negative impact on the receiving
stream
Response:
Flow increase is necessary to accommodate wet scrubbers that were installed to meet more stringent air
quality requirements.
Comment:
There looks to be 5 locations for monitoring: influent; effluent; the Pigeon River; and two other effluents
of wastewater before entering the wastewater treatment plants. This does not seem to be enough locations,
and, in some cases, not enough sampling frequency. What is the justification for those that are only tested
quarterly and annually?
Response:
Monitoring locations are based on the results of the instream modeling results and legal agreements
requirements.
Frequency of monitoring and number of parameters that are being monitored are based on results of the
reasonable potential analysis (RPA) and requirements contained in the Federal and State rules and
regulations. If a parameter shows reasonable potential and requires a limit, monitoring is generally at a
monthly or quarterly frequency. If a parameter does not show reasonable potential, monitoring might not
be required. Monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and priority pollutant scans (required with
each permit renewal) are evaluated for RPA with each renewal. The proposed monitoring frequencies will
provide adequate information to conduct RPA for the next permit renewal. The Division has a long term
monitoring data for this facility discharges and accumulated a statistically significant dataset for all typical
pollutants associated pulp and paper manufacturing. This data set allows for an accurate characterization
of the discharge at the frequency prescribed in the permit. Furthermore, the EPA has approved the
proposed monitoring frequency.
COMMENTS FROM NCWRCC
Comment:
Biological community: Biological community above and below discharge is different.
Response:
Despite the differences in the biological community, the threshold for Balanced and Indigenous Population
(BIP) as defined in the EPA Guidance has been met. This conclusion has been made by a world -renown
fisheries biologist Dr. Coutant, the DWR biologists agreed with the conclusion.
Comment:
Temperature should be monitored on a continuous 15-minute interval.
Response:
This would be an unprecedented requirement for North Carolina, which would create an undue burden on
the permittee and cannot be legally defended due to the consistent positive BIP determinations.
7

Comment:
Presumably, the 8.5° C exceedance is not in addition to the 29° C and 32° C thresholds.
Response:
This is not correct, both requirements are applicable.
Comment:
We request that the permit require analysis of individual constituents that are responsible for the high
conductivity levels.
Response:
Most of the required parameters are already provided in the renewal applications (EPA Form 2C).
Furthermore, there are no process changes available that would reduce conductivity in the discharge. There
are only 2 technical options available to reduce conductivity: installation of Reverse Osmosis or Vapor
Compression Evaporator. Both options are extremely expensive and not feasible. In addition, Reverse
Osmosis would create a highly toxic waste stream that has to be disposed somewhere, and disposal options
are not available or extremely expensive.
Comment:
We recommend that a BISS technical team be established that includes the NCWRC (NCWRCC comment).
Response:
The permit will require that the facility provides the next BIP study plan to NCWRCC for comments.
Comment:
Salinity must be measured at each site.
Response:
Most of the parameters responsible for salinity are already provided in the renewal applications (EPA Form
2C). Furthermore, there are no process changes available that would reduce conductivity in the discharge.
There are only 2 options available to reduce conductivity: installation of Reverse Osmosis or Vapor
Compression Evaporator. Both options are extremely expensive and not feasible. In addition, Reverse
Osmosis would create a highly toxic waste stream that has to be disposed somewhere, and disposal options
are not available or extremely expensive.
COMMENTS FROM SELC
Comment:
The Draft Permit fails to set daily temperature thresholds as required by law.
Blue Ridge Paper's BIP study is flawed and cannot support a continued thermal variance.
Response:
The law does not require daily temperature limits. The University of Tennessee studies in 2014 indicated
that Pigeon River below the discharge contains balanced and indigenous population of fish and
macroinvertabrates and DWR biologists concur with these conclusions. Furthermore, EPA did not contradict
the conclusions reached by the studies. The previous studies by University of TN had the same
conclusions. The studies were conducted by Dr. Coutant, he is one of the primary authors of the EPA 316a
8

Guidance and the world -renown fish biologist. Dr. Coutant also provided additional comments to respond
to the EPA questions regarding the BIP study.
In addition, during the last renewal the delta T for the permit (upstream and downstream temperature) was
reduced from 13.9 degrees Celsius to 8.5 degrees Celsius based on the evaluation conducted by EPA.
Therefore, there is no need to make additional changes to temperature standards. The large fish kills during
the summer 2007 were largely attributed to the exceptional drought and did not occur before or after that
year. In 2007 fish kills at other locations were also reported.
Furthermore, the temperature has been historically regulated as a monthly average limit in all North Carolina
wastewater permits. The Blue Ridge Paper operation does not produce wastewater with significant
fluctuation in the temperature as evidenced by the discharge monitoring reports. However, the DWR will
change the limit to the Weekly Average to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
Comment:
The Draft Permit's relaxed testing schedule for fish -tissue dioxin fails to protect of public health.
Response:
Elevated levels of dioxins were found in fish tissue in the Pigeon River (around the late 1980s).
Subsequently, a fish consumption advisory was issued for sport fish, catfish, and carp. The Canton Mill has
not discharged any detectable levels of 2,3,7,8 TCDD to the Pigeon River (since 1989) and dioxin in fish
tissue continues to decline. Most fish consumption advisories in North Carolina and Tennessee were
removed in 1998 and 2002. The last fish advisory for Common Carp in Waterville Lake was removed on
January 7, 2007. There are no fish advisories in the Pigeon River at this time.
The May 2010 NPDES Permit (the last permit issued) for the Blue Ridge Canton Mill required three (3)
additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance. During the sampling years between 2008-2013 the
concentrations in fish tissue fillets were below the NC DHHS 4 ppt TEQ [toxic equivalency] action level
for fish consumption advisory. In 2014, TEQ values were below detection for channel catfish for both
sampling Stations; however, in common carp, TEQ values were 9.619 ppt for Station 4A and 2.928 for
Station 4B. The TEQ results for common carp fillets in 2014 and 2007 could be anomalies, or could indicate
that some fish are present in the population with relatively higher TEQ values.
EPA conducted a High Volume dioxin sampling in the Pigeon River in 2014 and concluded that "the most
potent of congeners in the series, 2,3,7,8 - TCDD, was not detected in dissolved samples at the reporting
limit of 0.0012 parts per quadrillion at any station".
During the previous permit renewal all sampling results showed results below TEQ action level. Since the
fish dioxin concentration have been reduced steadily during the last several decades and the facility had no
dioxin detection in it's effluent since 1989 and the EPA High Volume dioxin sampling results, the fish tissue
sampling requirement in the permit will be reduced from 3 times/5 years to 1 time.'5 years. However, if any
sampling result shows a TEQ exceedance, the facility shall conduct an additional round of fish sampling.
In addition, the Dioxin congeners in the discharge will be monitoring on the annual basis. Only fish tissue
monitoring is being reduced to once/5 years.
Comment:
DEQ must develop and impose technology -based effluent limitations for numerous pollutants.
Response:
9

The Technology ..based limits are already incorporated into the permit. The effluent limitations in the permit
are established in accordance with the existing federal and state rules and regulations. The TBELs for all
parameters of concern are not necessary because effluent limits and monitoring for all pollutants of concern
is not necessary to ensure that the pollutants are adequately controlled because many of the pollutants
originate from similar sources, have similar treatabilities, and are removed by similar mechanisms. Because
of this, it may be sufficient to establish effluent limits for one pollutant as a surrogate or indicator pollutant
that ensures the removal of other pollutants of concern.
The EPA has a separate Engineering Division that is responsible for the development of the TBELs for
various industrial source categories. Even with this level of effort it sometime takes EPA 30-40 years to
develop new or update existing TBELs. The DWR has no capacity to develop their own TBELs.
Following the coal ash accident at the Duke Dan River Plant, the DWR has followed a simplified procedure
to develop TBELs for coal-fired plants to avoid prolonged delay related to promulgation of newly proposed
EPA guidelines. In response to this effort SELC immediately claimed that these DWR developed TBELs
are unacceptable. Subsequently, DWR discontinued implementation of their own TBELs and began
implementation of the EPA TBELs as soon as they were officially promulgated. Then, SELC immediately
initiated a strong critique of new EPA TBELs. Hence, simplified procedure is not acceptable to SELC, and
EPA protocol cannot be used by DWR due to the very limited resources.
Comment:
The agency fails to evaluate available technologies for further reductions on colored discharges.
Response:
The last complete evaluation of the color -reduction technologies was conducted by the EPA Tech Team that
consisted of several EPA experts and independent experts, including Dr. Liebergott. Since that time no
breakthrough in the color removal technology have been made. SELC made similar statements during the
last renewal and even contested the permit. They claimed that there is a feasible color removal technology
already exists. However, they lost their argument during litigation because they only provided a single expert
who was unable to name such a technology and only suggested that the facility works with the Reverse
Osmosis manufacturers to identify or develop such a technology. The final settlement agreement did not
include any color requirements that were more stringent than the final permit.
Blue Ridge Paper have been continually evaluating color removal efforts they make at the plant and
potentially new technologies. They have been unable to identify any new feasible technology. SELC is also
not naming any specific technology. It is important to understand that the market for such a technology is
extremely small. The pulp and paper industry have been downsizing for decades and most facilities don't
have color issues because they have a high dilution or discharge to the black water streams. For example,
there are 6 major dischargers in North Carolina that process cellulose and have a colored wastewater. But
only one facility has used a concerted effort to reduce color in their waste stream. Similar situation exists in
other states, as a result, the manufacturers of wastewater treatment are not interested in development a
treatment technology targeting color in pulp and paper facilities.
Comment:
DEQ advances a flawed, overly narrow interpretation of North Carolina's narrative aesthetic water quality
standard.
Response:
The narrative color standard consists of several components, and each of the components has to be evaluated:
10

1) Public Health - There has never been a public health advisory related to color in North Carolina.
2) Aquatic Life and Wildlife - The University of Tennessee biological studies conducted in 2005 and
2012 concluded that the Pigeon River has a "balanced and indigenous fish community in the
Pigeon River below the mill's discharge". The facility is also consistently passing WET tests
during the last 5 years and for an extended time period before that. Therefore, the benthic
macroinvertebrate impairment is not believed to be associated with the color discharge.
3) Palatability of Fish Color is not a parameter associated with fish palatability.
4) Secondary Recreation - Pigeon River in North Carolina continues to be used for secondary
recreation. Division's employees from the central office and the regional office have observed
people fishing below the discharge on numerous occasions.
5) Aesthetic Quality- NC has generally viewed color as primarily an aesthetic issue, and the
interpretation of color as an aesthetic impact is subjective.
Most of the color standard components are easily quantifiable and we can conclude that all of them are
being met in the Pigeon River. The most difficult component of the color standard is aesthetic because it
depends on the personal preferences and perceptions, vision characteristics, background light condition,
natural setting, bottom substrate, previous experiences, etc. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to determine
compliance with the color standard and it inevitably leads us to the need to translate the narrative standard
to a numeric value.
One such attempt was made by the EPA in the early 1980's, the EPA interpreted the North Carolina color
standard as an instream standard of 50 PCU [Platinum -Cobalt units]. This number is based on the ability of
the average observer to detect instream color. However, it is important to emphasize that the ability to detect
color does not mean that the color is objectionable to the observer, which is the basis of the North Carolina
standard. Hence, the EPA interpretation is overly conservative.
There are very few studies on the color perception, the most definitive color perception research on pulp
mill color discharges has been conducted by Dr. Prestrude of Virginia Tech Department of Psychology. His
research was funded in part by the State of Tennessee, and included color perception studies in both
Tennessee and North Carolina waters (Pigeon River). Prestrude (July 1996) reported that the vast majority
of persons participating in the research projects considered water quality color in the receiving stream
as aesthetically acceptable in the 100-110 PCU color range.
Therefore, we have a contradiction between the EPA's interpretation of the North Carolina color standard
and the conclusions of the Prestrude's studies. It is reasonable to suggest that the true level of color that does
not impair aesthetic quality of the stream lies somewhere within the range of 50 PCU to 100 PCU,
Nevertheless, in the absence of,acceptable site specific color perception studies, North Carolina DEO is
forced to use 50 PCU as the de facto instream color standard.
According to the state rule 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a)(4) the aesthetic quality standards will be protected
using 30Q2 flow. The state rules do not explicitly define what kind of 30Q2 flow shall be used and the
facility provided justification to use a Monthly 30Q2 flow as a basis for compliance determination. The
justification for the Monthly 30Q2 flow is provided in Section 1.3.3 (page 1-12) of the attached document
entitled Comprehensive Assessment and Analysis of Color in the Pigeon River. The lowest Monthly 30Q2
11

flow at the facility is measured at 129 cfs, this number will be used for the compliance purposes at the
Fiberville bridge (0.4 miles below discharge).
The DEQ proposes that the permit condition shall require the facility to meet the monthly average A50 PCU
(the difference between monthly average upstream and monthly average downstream true color) at the
Fiberville bridge when the flow in the Pigeon river is equal or above Monthly 30Q2. By meeting this
condition, the facility will not contravene the state color standard. Monthly average limit is used because
the state rules require employment of the 30Q2 flow basis and 30Q2 is a monthly flow. In addition, the
Discharge Monitoring Reports clearly demonstrates that effluent color is fairly consistent with low
variability with an exception of accidents.
This decision can be supported by the additional following information:
1). The Bowater Hiwassee River Study (Prestrude and Laws, 1989) identified that color increases of 50 to
60 PCU were acceptable to observers. Since the background color concentration for Blue Ridge Paper is
13 PCU, the downstream color concentration of 64 to 74 PCU should be acceptable to observers.
2). The recommendation from the Bowater Study was accepted by the State of Tennessee and it established
a color limit of 50 PCU above background for the Hiwassee River.
3) . Similar study conducted by Dr. Prestrude for the State of Maine resulted in the color limit of 40 PCU
above the background per river.
4). Dr. Prestrude conducted a color perception studies in both Tennessee and North Carolina waters (Pigeon
River). Prestrude (July 1996) reported that the vast majority of persons participating in the research projects
considered water quality color in the receiving stream as aesthetically acceptable in the 100-110 PCU color
range.
Comment:
DEQ must justify the use of a mixing zone, specify to which pollutants it applies, and develop spatial limits.
Response:
The mixing zone in the permit is a de. facto determination of the mixing zone that existed in the permit for
years. This practice is consistently used throughout the state, the first downstream sampling point identifies
the size of the mixing zone unless modeling indicates otherwise. The existing of the mixing zone is allowed
by state and federal rules since the discharge must be completely mixed with the receiving stream prior to
instream sampling to correctly determine instream concentration of the constituents.
Comment:
DEQ must consider and evaluate any discharges of PFAS by the paper mill
Response:
The mill representative informed the DWR that PFAS compounds are not used in the manufacturing process.
However, PFAS compounds are ubiquitous in the surface waters due to their wide use in kitchen utensils,
clothing, furniture, food wraps, firefighting foams, etc. The facility also treats domestic wastewater from
the town of Canton and their discharge might contain some PFAS that is unrelated to the manufacturing.
Comment:
The Draft Permit overlooks multiple additional discharges of pollution seeping from sludge disposal sites
into the Pigeon River.
Response:
12

The DWR will work with the Division of Waste Management to inspect reported locations to determine if
they represent a point -source discharges that are under the jurisdiction of the NPDES program. The
presented evidence indicates a sheet flow, which is not regulated. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to
collect a representative sample from such a sheet flow.
If it is determined that these are point source discharges, the DWR will require the facility to conduct
sampling in accordance with the procedures developed for Duke Energy. After sampling is conducted, the
data will be analyzed and appropriate measures taken, if necessary.
Unfortunately, SELC did not provide the exact values for each parameters they mentioned. They only
claimed elevated levels of some parameters and exceedance of target values for boron, cadmium, and cobalt.
The term "target values" is not used in the NPDES program, it is usually used by the Public Water Supply
program. Comparison of drinking water standards with the surface water data is not appropriate. Cadmium
has a State Standard, and Cobalt has the EPA criterion associated with it. Most of these parameters can be
present in coal ash because it contains almost every known element from the periodic table. But the typical
signature elements for this type of waste are Selenium, Arsenic, and Mercury; they are not mentioned in the
comments.
The Division requested the sampling results from the French Broad River riverkeeper to conduct evaluation.
The results of the 4 samples from 2 landfills have been finally submitted by the Riverkeeper on 05/21/2021.
They clearly demonstrate a complete absence of the coal -ash signature parameters such as As, Se, and Hg.
There were several compounds above detection level, including Ba, B, Sr, Zn, and Mo. But all of thetas were
well below the water quality standards - Ba: 377 ug/L < 1,000 ug/L; B: 800 ug/L < 7,300; ug/L Sr: 3,260
ug/L<40,000 ug/L; Mo:19.7 ug/L { 2,000 ug,'L; and Zn: 105 ug/L rt: 286 ug/L.
Only two elements in the seeps had very high concentration: Fe and Mn. However, the state does not have
water quality standards for these parameters, in fact they have been removed during the last triennial review
because both elements naturally present in high concentrations in all state waters.
Comment:
The permit violates Duty to Mitigate and Removed Substances Conditions.
Response:
The SELC did not provide evidence that PFAS or any other pollutants are entering surface water through
point -source discharges under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The coal ash contained in the landfill
has been contained and is not entering waters of the state. The DWR will work with DWM to address the
issue of seepage.
Comment:
The permit is not factoring downstream pollution concentrations into water -quality -based effluent
limitations.
Response:
The Division follows all the existing EPA guidance documents as well as the state and federal rules and
regulations in establishing NPDES limitations and other conditions. SELC did not provide any evidence that
would indicate any violations of the state standards or EPA criteria in the Pigeon River.
13

Comment:
The Draft Permit relies on outdated data to support its findings.
Response:
The Division will require submission of the new EPA Form 2C within 180 days from the effective date of
the permit to conduct an additional analysis of the discharge.
Comment:
DEQ must impose stricter controls to mitigate the mill's repeated fecal coliform violations.
Response:
The Division is working with the town of Canton to address the issue of the fecal coliform violations, this
issue is not related to the treatment system at the Blue Ridge Paper Treatment Plant. This issue is relatively
new, and historically the facility always complied with the Fecal Coliform limit.
Comment:
DEQ must not relax its chloroform limits for internal outfalls 002 and 003.
Response:
The Chloroform limits in the permit are the Technology Based Limits on the internal outfall, they are based
on the EPA Effluent Guidelines in 40 CFR 430 Subpart B. Wastewater discharged from the internal outfall
is being treated by the wastewater treatment system. The facility is not violating nationwide Chloroform
water quality criteria in the Pigeon River. Typically, the facility is discharging less than 3.5 microgram/Liter,
which is significantly less than the water quality criterion of 60 micrograms/Liter. The average concentration
of the chloroform in the discharge is 1.75 microgram/Liter.
However, the DWR recommends reducing Chloroform limits to the level implemented in the previous
permit. The same have been done for AOX (adsorbable organic halides) limits, Pentachlorophenol limits,
Trichlorophenol limits, and TSS limits.
Comment:
The Draft Permit must include a reference to an oxygen -injection facility 0.9 miles downstream of the mill.
Response:
This facility has been eliminated and correction will be made in the Fact Sheet.
COMMENTS FROM TDEC
Comment:
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.
Response:
The facility has been conducting reviews of the color removing technologies on an annual basis during the
last permit cycle and will continue to do so during the next permit cycle. However, no break -through feasible
color removal technology have been identified.
14

The pulp and paper industry have been downsizing for decades and most facilities don't have color issues
because they have a high dilution or discharge to the black water streams. For example, there are 6 major
dischargers in North Carolina that process cellulose and have a colored wastewater. But only one facility
had a concerted effort to reduce color in their waste stream. Similar situation exists in other states, as a result,
the manufacturers of wastewater treatment are not interested in development of treatment technologies
targeting color in pulp and paper facilities.
Comment:
TDEC is also supportive of item #6 in this section (Section A. (8).), 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.
Response:
Unfortunately, the major outages must be planned well in advance and changes to the language are not
possible. The month of October also cannot be included since the NCDOL safety requirements demand that
inspections of the recovery boiler to be conducted during September -October. The boiler can be inspected
only during an outage.
Comment:
TDEC requests that the new permit specifies that the next fish tissue monitoring effort be conducted in the
first year of the new permit.
Response:
This change will be made in the final permit.
Comment:
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 Richard.Cochran'a:tn.gov.
Response:
This request cannot be granted. All the permits in North Carolina contain the same legal requirements for
submitting electronic DMRs. Changing the requirements is not justified since all the data submitted by the
facilities is available on the EPA database ECHO.
Comment:
There is a lack of progress towards clean water
Response:
The DWR disagrees with this comment, the rationale for removing the Color Variance is explained in the
Fact Sheet in full detail.
15

Comment:
There are different interpretations of water quality standards
Response:
Since TDEC refuses to provide de jure interpretation of its color standard, it is impossible to make a direct
comparison between our states. However, TDEC allows color change of 40 PCU for the Resolute facility
on the Hiwassee River. If you consider the fact that the upstream color on that river is likely to be around
15 PCU, the TDEC de facto allows downstream color to be approximately 55 PCU. Hence, the color
standard interpretations are very similar in both states.
Comment:
"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.
Response:
According to the NC state rules, aesthetic parameter limitations are based on the 30Q2 flows, not on the
daily maximum limits and individual monthly averages. Furthermore, the public perception argument is
very difficult to measure quantitatively, it can be very easily manipulated, which makes it almost impossible
to enforce and administer.
Comment:
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 significant issues with this approach.
Response:
According to the NC state rules, aesthetic parameter limitations are based on the 30Q2 flows. The consultant
provided justification to use the Monthly 30Q2 flow and the DWR will be happy to provide the full text of
the rationale to TDEC.
The DWR reviewed flow data for 130 months beginning January 2008 and found that Monthly Average
flow below 129 cfs occurred 22 times, or 16.9°,0 of the time.
Comment:
Removal of the Color Variance is not fully justified.
Response:
The justification for the removal of the Color Variance is explained in the Fact Sheet and also addressed in
a separate Report.
Comment:
There are different interpretation of color criteria.
Response:
Since TDEC refuses to provide de jure interpretation of its color standard, it is impossible to make a direct
comparison between our states. However, TDEC allows color change of 40 PCU for the Resolute facility
on the Hiwassee River. If you consider the fact that the upstream color on that river is likely to be around
15 PCU, the TDEC de facto allows downstream color to be approximately 55 PCU. Hence, the color
standard interpretations are very similar in both states.
16

TDEC also claims that the monthly average levels of color in TN on the Pigeon River of 30-40 PCU is
objectionable. Simultaneously they allow their own Resolute facility to reach 55 PCU below the discharge
and don't find this level objectionable. This unequal interpretation of the Tennessee color level is
unacceptable.
Comment:
The facility has noncompliance with existing permit.
Response:
The DWR lists all the violations that occurred during the review period in the Fact Sheet. Please see below:
During the review period (08/2013 through 09.`2018) the following NOVs (notices of violation) have been
issued: 14 - for violating fecal coliform limit, 1 - for violating BOD limit, 1 - for violating TSS limit, and
2 - for violating Color limit. The color limit violations were listed for exceeding Color TBELs.
Comment:
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.
Response:
Recreational use in Tennessee has increased dramatically. The number of rafters in TN has increased from
--21,000 in 1995 to almost 150,000 in 2007, and then again to 200,000 in 2011. Now this number is mostly
limited by the days when discharge from the dam is scheduled by Duke Energy. Without these discharges,
the rafting is almost impossible due to a small size and insufficient flow of the Pigeon River. However, these
discharges contain fine silt that is tan in color and it contributed to the discoloration of the Pigeon River.
There is no evidence to suggest that color in the Pigeon River has any prohibitive impact on the rafting
industry.
The public perception argument is very difficult to measure quantitatively, it can be very easily manipulated.
Basing impairment on such a shaky argument is questionable.
Comment:
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.
Response:
The impairment of the Pigeon River below the mill's discharge is based on the Biological Impairment
detected at one site in the town of Clyde. This impairment is the result of the very low habitat score (around
51 out of 100), high conductivity, and the temperature impacts. In fact, this segment was not impaired in
19_97 when color discharge was 62,000 lb/day (current discharge is -35,000 lb/day). Despite the significant
color decrease since 1997, the macroinvertebrate community condition deteriorated. It appears that there is
17

no correlation between the color discharges and the biological impairment. However, there is a very good
correlation between macroinvertebrate conditions and droughts.
The facility is also consistently passing WET tests during the last 5 years and for an extended time period
before that. In March of 1991, the EPA published "Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based
Toxics Control". This document states that there is a very strong correlation (88%) between receiving water
impacts, including impact to macroinvertebrates, and whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests. Since the effluent
from Blue Ridge Paper comprises significant portion of the Pigeon River flow, the permit has a WET test
requirement at the effluent concentration of 90%. Since the facility has an excellent compliance history, we
can use this information to support our conclusion regarding the impact of color on the Pigeon River.
Scientific studies also indicate that stream color concentrations below 100 color units have no effect on
health of aquatic organisms (NCASI Special Report 9407, Human Perception and Biological Impacts of
Kraft Mill Effluent Color, June 1994).
North Carolina has a significant number of black water streams with color level much higher than 100 PCU
due to the natural presence of lignins and tannins. If these streams are not impacted by other factors, the
color alone does not impair aquatic life in these streams.
It is also very important to emphasize that factors used for detecting. Biological Impairment and meeting
requirements for Balanced and Indigenous Population are different.
COMMENTS FROM CWFNC
Comment:
Color Special Condition and the EPA Tech Team report suggest additional color reduction measures.
Response:
Color reduction options for Blue Ridge Paper operations have been evaluated by Dr. Liebergott in a 2006
report submitted to US EPA. The report suggested several options for potential color removal, but concluded
that "Given the current state of adaptable technology and the mill's already high level of environmental
performance, future improvements are expected only to be marginally incremental." Based on review of
this report and all available information, the EPA Tech Team concluded that the Canton Mill (under the
most optimistic scenario) can achieve an annual average color limit of 32,000 lblday. The EPA Technical
Review Workgroup (TRW) unanimously agreed with this recommendation, and the TRW (2008) report
recommended the following: "Based on implementation from the suite of items above or their equivalent,
the permit should require an effluent color target range of 32,000-37,000 lbsrday as an annual average by
the end of the next permit term." The current permit contains a 35,000 Ibs/day annual average limit, which
is well within the range recommended by the TRW.
The color reduction requirements contained in the 2010 permit were derived directly from the mill's efforts
to identify possible color reduction measures and from the EPA TRW (2008) report. The mill was required
to evaluate several color reduction technologies, and implement those that are identified as technically,
operationally, and economically feasible, or identify other options that will result in similar increments of
color reduction. The list of possible reduction technologies includes further improvements in leak and spill
prevention and control (BMPs), process optimization, and addition of second stage oxygen delignification
on the softwood/pine fiber line.
DWQ (now DWR) participated in the TRW process that was conducted to evaluate technically,
economically, and operationally feasible technologies and BMPs that can be implemented by Blue Ridge
18

Paper to reduce the color discharge. The cost of all color reduction technologies and BMPs was evaluated
by the EPA Tech Team, by Dr. Liebergott, and by the TRW. The TRW evaluation was based on the reports
from 6 independent experts, and 2 experts from EPA HQ. All the TRW recommendations were included in
the 2010 permit.
The facility has provided annual reports on the color reduction methods included in the permit. Permit
required Blue Ridge Paper to evaluate two specific technologies: hydrogen peroxide enhancement of the
pine and hardwood extraction stages and the installation of 2nd stage oxygen delignification on the pine
line.
In laboratory testing and in -mill trials with hydrogen peroxide enhancement, total bleach plant effluent color
actually increased or showed no significant reduction. Full Scale implementation would result in increased
costs. Enhanced extraction was not and is not technically, operationally or economically feasible for Canton
bleaching process.
The 2nd Stage 02 trials were conducted by an outside laboratory using pulp furnished by the facility. In
laboratory tests, there were significant issues with pulp strength, and a projected color reduction of less than
1000 lbs per day at significant cost. The addition of second stage 02 would require significant capital cost
and operating expense. The facility submitted reports on both evaluations to DEQ and EPA. EPA
commented on the reports, and the facility responded to the comments.
It is also necessary to emphasize that prediction of the color reductions is extremely difficult because color
is not a conservative parameter and synergetic effect of the sewer generated color is strong. This effect
occurs when two streams of color combine and the resulting color is much higher than a simple arithmetic
addition of color from these streams. For example, during the 2001 permit renewal the predicted reductions
from the technologies by Dr. Liebergott and TRW ranged from 1,224 lbiday to 3,534 lb/day and were based
on the bleach plants effluent, not the final effluent. The past experience clearly indicates that such
predictions are not reliable. For example, during the period between 1999 through 2005 bleach plant effluent
color has been reduced by 30%, which only resulted in 9.4% reduction in the final effluent color. Such a
discrepancy can be attributed to the sewer generated color. Therefore, all the predicted reductions in color
are likely to be overestimated.
The DWR does not object to the continued EPA Tech Team involvement in the permit renewal process, but
this process is expensive and no longer being financed by the federal government.
Comment:
A Low Flow Contingency Plan must be an integral part of the permit's Color Special Provision, subject to
public review
Response:
This plan is already legally part of the permit and is available to the public for review.
Comment:
The NC Division of Water Quality must implement a numerical color standard applicable to colored
discharges throughout the state.
Response:
Color is a very subjective parameter, its perception and aesthetic objectionability depends on weather,
surrounding environment, bottom substrate color and texture, and personal preferences. EPA has not
19

developed a national criterion for color. EPA official document states that "numerical color limit is
meaningless" (Red Book 1976.' 1986 PB-263 943). Neither TN nor NC has a numeric color standard.
Examination of the 27 states in the EPA regions 1 -5 shows that 22 states have a narrative color standard
similar to North Carolina's color standard. EPA also did not implement any color standard for Pulp and
Paper facilities when the Cluster Rules were developed.
The DWR also objects to the use of the apparent color because it is strongly impacted by the sediment and
Blue Ridge Paper discharges the wastewater with very low turbidity level. It is not responsible for the high
precipitation events that generate high turbidity that impacts apparent color.
The DWR is implementing the numeric EPA interpretation of the State Narrative Color Standard. This
interpretation is based on the True Color, not Apparent Color.
Comment:
There is a significant Temperature Impact and Temperature Variance must be strengthened.
Response:
Answered previously in the document.
Comment:
Biological and Chemical Waste Assimilation is not fully evaluated.
Response:
A site -specific Best Available Technology (BAT) based limit was calculated for the 2001 permit to
determine the monthly average 5 - day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) limit. A site -specific BAT
approach was used because North Carolina's Division of Water Resources continues to agree that an
economically feasible end -of -pipe technology capable of reliably meeting the water quality limit specified
by the existing model does not exist at this time and no violations of the dissolved oxygen standard in the
river have been observed in recent years.
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources' recommendation for the 2001 permit BOD5 limit was
established based on the demonstrated level of performance for the existing treatment plant. Data on
treatment plant performance and influent loading from the Canton Mill (1998 through 2000) was evaluated
and examined for outliers. The maximum influent loading and lowest treatment plant performance were
used to develop the monthly average BOD5 limit. The data set was sufficient to account for the day to day
variability of the treatment system.
Over the time period evaluated, the treatment plant has performed extremely well and the DWR
recommended to retain a monthly average BOD5 loading of 3,205 Ib. day in the draft permit.
Because Blue Ridge Paper has oxygen injection facilities in place to maintain the instream dissolved oxygen
standard should instream dissolved oxygen dictate a need, Blue Ridge Paper complies with the conditions
set forth by 40 CFR 125.3 (f). Originally, there were 4 oxygen injection facilities near the facilities discharge.
Due to the good performance of the wastewater treatment plant these injection facilities were used very
rarely and two of these facilities were eliminated as unnecessary.
The methodology used for the daily maximum 5 - day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) limit was
developed during the 1997 permit cycle. A site -specific daily maximum to monthly average multiplier was
used for determination of the recommended daily maximum limit. Using this methodology and reviewing
20

data since the Canton Modernization Project (1998 —2001) the recommended daily maximum limit was
based on a multiplier of 3.4 (daily maximum/monthly average) is 10,897 lbiday. The draft Permit retains
the existing BOD5 daily maximum limit.
The conditions in the Waterville Lake are complicated, but there have been Pigeon River studies conducted
by the mill's consultants and EPA demonstrating that there are numerous sources of color in the Pigeon
River watershed. Furthermore, extensive data set demonstrates that the highest monthly average true color
levels at the state line is within 30-40 PCU. This is well below color level of 50 PCU, which was established
by the EPA and set in a legal precedent by the court of law. Therefore, there is no objective evidence to
demonstrate that the TN side of the Pigeon Rive is negatively impacted by color. Rationale for additional
studies has not been presented. In addition, some color impacts on the TN side of the border can be attributed
to the fine silt discharged from the Waterville Lake. Unfortunately, these discharges occur during the time
of highest rafting periods and experienced by the public. But without these discharges commercial rafting
would not be possible due to the typically low flows during the high recreation period.
Comment:
AOX and Chloroform
The previous permit allowed for increased release of adsorbable organic halides, noting that the limits had
been recalculated as per current production levels.
We call for AOX and chloroform limits to be reduced at least 15% each permit cycle, along with all TRI
chemicals that are carcinogens or released at a rate of 1,000 pounds per year, and for all such chemicals to
be sampled daily in the effluent and explicitly limited in the permit.
Response:
The statement regarding AOX increase is false, the previous permit did not allow increase in AOX.
The call for 15% reduction is baseless and cannot be achieved with any feasible existing technology.
Comment:
The effluent has issues with Fecal coliforms.
Response:
Answered previously in the document.
Comment:
There is an issue of instream Turbidity.
Response:
The existing permit already contained instream and effluent testing requirements for turbidity. Testing
indicated that the discharge from the facility has no impact on the instream turbidity. The discharge from
the facility was determined to be well below the state standard of 50 NTU.
Turbidity in the discharge from Walters Lake cannot be attributed to the Blue Ridge Paper.
Comment:
Dioxins and Furans and Fish Tissue Sampling. The draft permit apparently changes the effluent limit,
monitoring frequency, and locations at which the full range of dioxin and furan congeners is to sampled and
analyzed.
21

Response:
This statement is false, no such changes are proposed. The permit only proposes reduction in the fish tissue
sampling.
Comment:
Until a full ecological assessment is carried out, as required by Paragraph 33 of the Settlement Agreement
on the 1996 permit, it must be assumed that these persistent toxins can be remobilized with a severe storm
event, draining of Waterville Lake or other disturbance of sediments.
Response:
The EPA has conducted ecological assessment twice in the past two decades, one was done prior to the 2010
permit renewal and the second one prior to this renewal. CWFNC can obtain copies of these assessments
from EPA.
In addition, the mill's consultant AquAeTer has conducted a Comprehensive Assessment and Analysis of
Color in the Pigeon River and submitted it to the DWR in 2014. This study is available for the public review.
Comment:
There are Color related issues of Fish palatability, Odor, and Irritants.
Response:
Color is not a parameter associated with fish palatability. Some studies do indicate that effluents from pulp
and paper mills are associated with undesirable flavor in fish taken from receiving waters (Baldwin et al.
1961, Heil and Lindsay 1990, Kenefick et al. 1995, Redenbach 1997). In one effluent exposure study
involving three British Columbia pulp and paper mills, statistically based taste tests provided convincing
evidence that fish are rapidly (within hours) taste -tainted by exposure to effluents (Redenbach, 1997). In
another fish tainting investigation of the upper Wisconsin River, Heil and Lindsay (1990) suggest that Aspen
and Pine fibers associated with sediments and benthic organisms below an unnamed mill may provide a
theoretical vector for the bioaccumulation of alkyl phenols in flavor -tainted Walleye.
However, the literature on fish palatability reveals no definitive evidence of any specific compounds
associated with mill effluents that are responsible for these issues. In a comprehensive review of historical
technical reports, Kenefick et al. 1995 notes that the tendency of compounds like the chlorophenols or alkyl
phenols to be reported in fish tainting studies does not mean that these identifiable compounds were
primarily responsible for causing the flavor taint. "Biological or natural sources of tastes and odors in water
must also be considered as potential causes of off -flavors and the possibility of odor synergism when these
compounds are combined with anthropogenic tainting compounds is also likely".
DWQ is not currently aware of any fish palatability studies that have been conducted on the Pigeon River.
And without knowledge of any specific risk factors that cause fish palatability issues where studies have
been conducted, no conclusions can be drawn about the presence of risk factors caused by the Canton Mill.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has received comments on the topic from concerned
citizens, and has expressed that the agency views fish palatability as an important issue related to North
Carolina's anglers.
FERC license requirements for the Walters Hydro includes: no noxious odors or off taste of fish flesh in
blind samples (independent food science lab) prior to water release into the bypassed reach of the Pigeon
River at Walters Hydro.
22

DWQ also requested an input from 4 exiting staff members of NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) and one retired staff member of NCWRC. Their response was:
• No complaints have been tiled to the WRC (on record or anecdotal) specifically related to
palatability of Pigeon River fish.
• NCWRC believes that they would have heard about such complaints if it were an issue among NC
anglers.
Comment:
There are implications of Unfulfilled Provisions of the Settlement Agreement on 1996 Permit
Response:
All the provisions of the Settlement Agreement have been fulfilled prior to the 2010 renewal.
The call for an end of the pipe 50 PCU color limit is baseless and unprecedented. Even toxic compounds are
allowed to assimilate in the river using appropriate dilution factors -. 7Q10 for chronic limits and 1Q10 for
acute limits. The state rules require the use of 30Q2 for aesthetic standards.
HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on review of the public record and written/oral comments received during the public
hearing process, I recommend to the Division Director that the 2021 Draft NPDES Permit
NC0000272 for Blue Ridge Paper Products be revised as follows, and reissued for five years
pending EPA approval:
1. Change the Temperature limit to the Weekly Average to meet the requirements of the Settlement
Agreement.
2. Reduce Chloroform limits to the level implemented in the previous permit.
3. Add a provision that the facility provides the next BEP study plan to NCWRCC for comments.
4. Add a requirement to conduct fish tissue monitoring during the first effective year of the renewed
permit.
_3-,21-20X-2-
Date:
APPENDICES
A. Draft Permit
B. Fact Sheet
C. Announcement of Public Hearing
D. NPDES Committee Presentation
Scott Vinson, Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
Division of Water Resources
23