NC0000272_FK-2022-0001 CPA_20220510

r
ROY COOPER 19 6 ' ti A..
Governor
ELIZABETH S.BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E.ROGERS,JR. NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
April 27,2022
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7018 1830 0001 8037 2209
•
Blue Ridge Holding, LLC d/b/a PactivEvergreen
Attn.: John McCarthy, General Manager
175 Main Street
Canton,NC 28716
SUBJECT: Assessment of Civil Penalties for Violation(s)of N.C. General Statute(s) 143-215.1
Canton Mill WWTP
Enforcement Case FK-2022-0001
NPDES Permit NC0000272
Haywood County
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
This letter transmits notice of a civil penalty assessed against Blue Ridge Holding, LLC in the
amount of$20,274.64, including$274.64 in enforcement costs.
Attached is a copy of the assessment document explaining this penalty. This action was taken
under the authority vested in me pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of
Environmental Quality. Any continuing violation(s)may be the subject of a new enforcement action,
including an additional penalty.
Within thirty days of receipt of this notice,you must do one of the following:
1. Submit payment of the penalty:
Payment should be made directly to the order of the Department of Environmental
Quality(do not include waiver form). Payment of the penalty will not foreclose further
enforcement action for any continuing or new violation(s).
Please submit payment to the attention of:
NC DEQ/DWR/NPDES •
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
DE -4
) Noriii Carolina meEnnmentai Quality I Divisio of Resources
512 North SalisburyDepart Streentt 1of1611 Mail Service Center Raleighn,NortWaterh Carolina 27699-1611
Cs..or
"` gai V 919.707.9000
ae Yy

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 2
or
2. Submit a written request for remission including a detailed justification for such
request:
Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors
listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the civil penalty
assessed. Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for contesting whether the
violation(s)occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the
civil penalty assessment document. Because a remission request forecloses the option of
an administrative hearing, such a request must be accompanied by a waiver of your right
to an administrative hearing and a stipulation and agreement that no factual or legal
issues are in dispute. Please prepare a detailed statement that establishes why you believe
the civil penalty should be remitted, and submit it to the Division at the address listed
below. In determining whether a remission request will be approved, the following
factors shall be considered:
(a.) whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS 143B-282.1
(b)were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the violator;
• (b.) whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting
from the violation;
(c.) whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(d.) whether the violator has been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
or
(e.) whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining
necessary remedial actions.
Please note that all evidence presented in support of your request for remission must be
submitted in writing. The Director of the Division will review your evidence and inform
you of his decision in the matter of your remission request. The response will provide
details regarding the case status, directions for payment, and provision for further appeal
of the penalty to the Environmental Management Commission's Committee on Civil
Penalty Remissions (Committee). Please be advised that the Committee cannot consider
information that was not part of the original remission request considered by the Director.
Therefore, it is very important that you prepare a complete and thorough statement in
support of your request for remission.
In order to request remission,you must complete and submit the enclosed "Request for
Remission of Civil Penalties, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and
Stipulation of Facts"form within thirty(30)days of receipt of this notice. The Division
also requests that you complete and submit the enclosed "Justification for Remission
Request. " Both forms should be submitted to the following address:
NC DEQ/DWR/NPDES

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 3
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1617
or
3. File a petition for an administrative hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings:
If you wish to contest any statement in the attached assessment you must file a petition for an
administrative hearing. You may obtain the petition form from the Office of Administrative
Hearings. You must file the petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within thirty(30)
days of receipt of this notice. A petition is considered filed when it is received in the Office of
Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office of Administrative Hearings accepts
filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except for official state
holidays. The original and one (1) copy of the petition must be filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings. The mailing address for the Office of Administrative Hearings is:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-6714
A copy of the petition must also be served on DENR as follows:
Mr. Bill Lane, General Counsel
NC Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Please indicate the case number(as found on page one of this letter) on the petition.
Failure to exercise one of the options above within thirty(30) days of receipt of this letter, as
evidenced by an internal date/time received stamp (not a postmark), will result in this matter being
referred to the Attorney General's Office for collection of the penalty through a civil action. Please be
advised that additional penalties may be assessed for violations that occur after the review period of this
assessment.
If you have any questions,please contact G. Landon Davidson at 828-298-4500.
Sincerely,
fdl Richard E. Rogers, Jr.
Director, Division of Water Resources

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAYWOOD OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IN THE MATTER OF: ) CASE NO. FK-2022-0001
Blue Ridge Holding, LLC—Canton Mill )
) FINDINGS AND DECISION
FOR VIOLATIONS OF: ) AND ASSESSMENT OF
) CIVIL PENALTIES
15A NCAC 02B .0211 (12), )
15A NCAC 02B .0211 (2), and )
NPDES Permit NC0000272 Condition A. (6.))
G.S. 143- 215.1 (a) (1) )
NPDES Permit NC0000272 )
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statute (hereby known as G.S.) 143-215.6A, I, Jeffrey O.
Poupart, of the Division of Water Resources(hereby known as DWR), make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Blue Ridge Holding, LLC d.b.a. PactivEvergreen(BRH)is a company organized in North
Carolina and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina. BRH holds NPDES
permit NC0000272 for its Canton Mill facility in Haywood County.
B. On November 23, 2021, the Asheville Regional Office (ARO) of NC DEQ - Division of
Water Resources (DWR) received a notification from BRH stating that trace amounts of
foam were being observed downstream of the Canton Mill's NPDES-permitted Outfall 001
in the Pigeon River [stream segment 5-(7)], a Class C water in the French Broad River
Basin.
C. On November 24, 2021, an email from BRH identified the source of the material causing
the foam in the NPDES discharge as"soap"(Tall Oil) derived from the Kraft process. The
method in which the tall oil was introduced into the wastewater treatment system was not
disclosed or known at the time of the email communication.
D. The November 24, 2021 email stated that BRH environmental staff reported observing
dead and distressed fish downstream of Outfall 001 at multiple areas. BRH reported a total
of"5-10"dead fish;no dead fish were observed above Outfall 001. BRH staff reported that
the cause of the fish kill was unknown. Dissolved oxygen and other water quality
parameters were reported to be within normal range downstream of Outfall 001.
E. On November 29, 2021, DWR staff conducted an inspection of the facility and the
Pigeon River extending approximately 6 miles downstream of Outfall 001. DWR staff
observed dead fish at multiple locations.

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 5
F. On November 29th, 2021, ARO received telephone notification that the BOD5 daily
maximum effluent concentration had been exceeded for samples collected on November
23rd, 2021. On November 30th and December 1st, 2021, 2021, e-mail communication from
BRH reported a BOD5 daily maximum effluent concentration exceeding the limits
established in the Permit NC0000272 limit at Outfall 001. The dates in which the BOD5
daily maximum effluent limit was exceeded include November 23rd, 24th and 25th.
G. On December 6, 2021, BRH submitted the required 5-day follow-up report describing the
event, fulfilling Part II, Section e, 6. & 9 of Permit NC0000272. The total number of dead
fish observed, per the report, exceeded 90 over an eight-day period. Distressed fish were
observed for a seven-day period. The December 6, 2021 report included substantive
background on the event including data on monitoring of the Pigeon River. The report
identified two causes or sources of the wastewater treatment plant impact. One component
identified as a cause of the release of tall oil was a temporary hose that was left in the open
position with the end of the hose positioned outside of the secondary containment. The
hose was attached to components of the tall oil process. The bypass of the secondary
containment allowed the tall oil to flow into the facility's wastewater system. The second
component of the impact was "believed" to be overflow from a weak liquor (i.e., pine
liquor) containment tank.
H. The December 2, 2021 BRH 5-day report also cited multiple corrective action measures
underway or planned to address the causes of the discharge to the wastewater facility.
On December 2, 2021, e-mail communication from BRH reported a BOD5 daily
maximum effluent in compliance with permit limits for the sample collected on
November 26, 2021.
J. On December 8,2021,DWR requested additional information from BRH regarding details
presented in the 5-day follow-up report.
K. On December 15, 2021, BRH submitted the supplemental information described in the
December 8, 2021 additional information request from DWR.
L. The 5-day follow-up report and additional requested information attributed the likely cause
of the dead fish and permit violations to the inadvertent discharge of tall oil and/or Pine
Weak Liquor to the WWTP.
M. On January 3,2022,Notice of Violation&Intent to Assess Civil Penalty NOV-2022-LV-
0002 was issued to BRH for three Daily Maximum and one Monthly Average BOD5
effluent limit violations at Outfall 001 associated with the discharges occurring 23-25
November, 2021. The facility received NOV-2022-LV-0002 on January 6, 2022.
N. On January 3, 2022, Notices of Violation & Recommendation for Enforcement NOV-
2021-FK-0002 & NOV-2021-SS-0022 were issued to BRH for the fish kill and stream

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 6
standards violations associated with the discharges occurring November 23-25,2021. The
following violations were identified:
1. Cause or Permit Any Waste Discharge in Violation of Water Quality Standards—G.S.
143- 215.1 (a) (1)
2. Unlawful Discharge'of Oils or Other Wastes: Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards
for Class C Waters - 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (12)
3. Conditions of Best Usage- 15A NCAC 02B.0211 (2)
4. Permit Condition Violation, A. (6.) Best Management Practices (BMP) Special
Condition
O. BRH responded to NOV-2022-LV-0002 on January 14, 2022. The response identified
actions that likely could have prevented the loss of Tall Oil to the mill sewer including,but
not limited to,updated operator training on best management practices (BMPs), enhanced
monitoring, and enhanced secondary containment. The response states that permit limit
exceedances were caused by the negative impact of Tall Oil entering the mill sewer system.
Based on the response, corrective measures are in place or being implemented. BRH
restated that discharge from the tall oil process and overflow from the weak liquor tank
were"likely causes"of the wastewater treatment plant impact.
P. On February 3, 2022, DWR received a response to NOV-2021-FK-0002 & NOV-2021-
SS-0022 from BRH. The response indicates that the upset of the wastewater system
impacted water quality in the Pigeon River and aquatic life(i.e., fish).
Q. On March 22, 2022, DWR re-issued NOV-2021-FK-0002 and NOV-2021-SS-0022 to
BRH. No additional responses were required of BRH.
R. G.S. 143- 215.1 (a) (1) states that no person shall cause or permit any waste, directly or
indirectly, to be discharged to or in any manner intermixed with the waters of the State in
violation of the water quality standards applicable to the assigned classifications.
S. Title 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (12) states "Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other
wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health,
secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of
fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses."
T. Title 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (2) states "The conditions of waters shall be such that waters
are suitable for all best uses specified in this Rule. Sources of water pollution that preclude
any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be deemed to violate a
water quality standard;"

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 7
U. NC0000272 Permit Special Condition A. (6.)Best Management Practices (BMP)requires
implementation of BMPs specified in the subject NPDES permit. The reported
circumstances of the Tall Oil release and subsequent introduction into the wastewater
system indicate a failure to implement multiple BMPs. Section A.1. for example,
"requires the permittee to return spilled or diverted spent pulping liquors, soap and
turpentine to the process to the maximum extent practicable......at a rate that does not
disrupt the receiving wastewater treatment system".
V. The impacted stream is the Pigeon River,classified C waters within the French Broad River
Basin. The Pigeon River segment impacted is listed as impaired due to poor benthos
bioclassification.
W. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled$274.64.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Blue Ridge Holding, LLC is a"person" within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.6A pursuant
to G.S. 143-212 (4).
B. The Pigeon River constitutes waters of the State within the meaning of G.S. 143-212 (6).
C. Blue Ridge Holding,LLC violated G.S. 143-215.1 (a)(1)by causing a discharge to waters
of the state in violation of water quality standards for a Class C stream.
D. Blue Ridge Holding, LLC violated Title 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (12) unlawfully
discharging deleterious substances which rendered the waters injurious to aquatic life,
causing a fish kill.
E. Blue Ridge Holding, LLC violated Title 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (2)by causing a discharge
event which rendered the receiving stream unsuitable for aquatic life propagation and
biological integrity and temporarily removing a Condition of Best Usage.
F. Blue Ridge Holding, LLC violated NC000272 Permit Special Condition A. (6.) by
allowing the discharge of tall-oil into the WWTP, a failure to implement multiple BMPs
which require tall-oil not be introduced into the WWTP.
G. Blue Ridge Holding, LLC may be assessed civil penalties pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A(a)
(1), which provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000) per violation per day may be assessed against a person who violates any
classification, standard, limitation, or management practice established pursuant to G.S.
143-214.1, 143-214.2, or 143-215.

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 8
H. The State's enforcement cost in this matter may be assessed to BRH pursuant to G.S. 143-
215.3 (a) (9) and G.S. 143B-282.1 (b) (8).
I. Jeffrey O. Poupart of the Division of Water Resources,pursuant to delegation provided by
the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality and the Director of the Division
of Water Resources, has the authority to assess civil penalties in this matter.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the following:
III. DECISION
Accordingly, Blue Ridge Holding, LLC is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ $2,000 for one violation of Title 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (12) unlawfully
discharging deleterious substances which rendered the waters injurious to aquatic life, causing a fish
kill impacting approximately six(6)miles of the Pigeon River.
$ $8,000 for four of four violations of Title 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (2) by causing a
discharge event which rendered the receiving stream unsuitable for aquatic life propagation and
biological integrity and temporarily removing a Condition of Best Usage.
$ $10,000 for one violation of Permit NC0000272 Special Condition A. (6.) (permit
version 2010)by allowing the discharge of Tall Oil into the WWTP, a failure to implement multiple
BMPs which require Tall Oil not be introduced into the WWTP, causing non-compliance with effluent
limits.
$ $20,000.00 TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, authorized by G.S. 143-215.6A
$ $274.64 Enforcement Cost
$ $20,274.64 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
As required by G.S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining the amount of penalty,I considered the factors set out
in G.S. 143B-282.1(b), which are:
(1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public health, or to
private property resulting from the violations;
(2) The duration and gravity of the violations;
(3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violations were committed willfully or intentionally;

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 9
(7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs over which the
Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority; and
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures
S/7/0z2 ;71__
Date , Jeffrey O. Poupart
Division of Water Resources

ROY COOPER l ' . F
Governor tr,�" J
ELIZABETH S.BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E.ROGERS,JR. NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT FACTORS
Violator: Blue Ridge Holding,LLC—Canton Mill
County: Haywood
Case Number: FK-2022-0001
Permit Number: NC0000272
1
ASSESSMENT FACTORS
1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State,to the public health,or
to private property resulting from the violation;
The discharge of an industrial process by-product,referred to as"soap"(Tall Oil),to the waste
stream entering the NPDES-permitted wastewater system resulted in an impact to the wastewater
treatment process. The wastewater plant's inability to fully treat the effluent resulted in a fish kill
with dead and distressed fish observed approximately six miles downstream of the NPDES outfall.
The discharge of effluent having an elevated level of BOD5 could negatively impact the aquatic
habitat and not be immediately observable.
2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
On November 22,2021 a repair to a process system involving a temporary hose disconnection
resulted in a discharge of Tall Oil by-product to the wastewater system;the discharge was
identified on November 23,2021. On November 23, 2021 facility staff noted changes in
wastewater influent indicative of Tall Oil in the wastewater flow which adversely impacted the
treatment process. Elevated levels of BOD5 were reported for the period November 23 -25, 2021.
The impact resulted in violations of the NPDES(NC0000272)permit limits for BOD5 at levels
35.6%, 64.5%and 53.4%above permit limits.Dead fish were observed by facility staff from
November 23-30,2021.BOD5 levels returned to normal or were compliant with permit limits on
December 1, 2021. The receiving stream,the Pigeon River, is listed as impaired for benthos
starting at the location of permit NC0000272/Outfall 001.
3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality,or on air quality;
The discharge of wastewater above permit limits resulted in the exceedance of stream standards
resulting in dead and distressed fish.For the duration of the event,the surface water quality did
not meet its classified use.
4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
The costs to rectify the damage is unknown.NC WRC was not requested to perform a fish kill
assessment.
D North512Nort Carolina
hSali
Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
sbwy Street 11611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA 919.707.9000
°speMrdabMwmuW Geelty

5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance.
The amount of money saved by noncompliance is unknown but would include some or all the
corrective measures identified in the BRH responses.BRH corrective measures referenced
include, but were not limited to, expanded operator training, expanded communication systems,
remote visual monitoring systems,increased secondary containment,etc. The subject permit
requires extensive best management practices under Special Condition A. (6)to prevent the
release of Tall Oil to the wastewater treatment system.A portion of the referenced corrective
measures(e.g., operator training)are listed as required best management practices in the NPDES
permit.
6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally.
The violations do not appear to have been committed willfully or intentionally.However, failure
or neglect to implement adequate best management practices resulted in the release and
subsequent impact to the wastewater treatment system.
7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs over
which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority; and
Within the last five years,the facility has been previously assessed a total of$939.18 for two
violations of permit limits,LV-2019-0121 and LV-2019-01222.
8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
The total costs for enforcement procedures is$274.64.
5/7/2
Date Jeffrey O. Poupart
Division of Water Resources

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 10
JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
Case Number: FK-2022-0001 County: Haywood
Assessed Party: Blue Ridge Holding, LLC d/b/a PactivEvergreen
Permit Number NC0000272 Amount Assessed: $20,274.64
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the `Request For Remission,
Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of Facts"form to request remission of this civil penalty. You should
attach any documents that you believe support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in evaluating your
request for remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors listed below as
they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the civil penalty assessed. Requesting remission is not the proper
procedure for contesting whether the violation(s)occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the civil
penalty assessment document. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143B-282.1(c), remission of a civil penalty may be granted only when
one or more of the following five factors applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to your case and provide a
detailed explanation,including copies of supporting documents,as to why the factor applies(attach additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 143B-282.1(b)were wrongfully applied to the
detriment of the petitioner(the assessment factors are listed in the civil penalty assessment document);
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the violation (i.e., explain the
steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent future occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (i.e., explain why the violation was unavoidable or
something you could not prevent or prepare for);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary remedial actions (i.e., explain
how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing the activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:

Case Number FK-2022-0001
Page 11
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COUNTY OF HAYWOOD
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
) AND STIPULATION OF FACTS
Blue Ridge Holding d/b/a PactivEvergreen)
Canton Mill WWTP )
)
NPDES PERMIT NC0000272 ) CASE NUMBER FK-2022-0001
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling$20,274.64 for violation(s) as set forth in the assessment
document of the Division of Water Resources dated April 22, 2022,the undersigned, desiring to seek
remission of the civil penalty, does hereby waive the right to an administrative hearing in the above-
stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment document. The
undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission of this civil penalty
must be submitted to the Director of the Division within thirty(30) days of receipt of the notice of
assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission request will be allowed after thirty (30) days
from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the day of , 2022.
Signature
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
EMAIL