NC0000078_Permit (Modification)_19910912

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0000078
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File
- Historical
Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
September 12, 1991
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content 011 the resrerse side

T�� N�14s
D8219.A(LI)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF TRANSYLVANIA
..
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
90 EHR 1097
P.H. GLATFELTER COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
GEORGE T. EVERETT, and
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, •
Respondents.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement made this ]zI day of
, 1991, between and among Petitioner P.H. Glatfelter
Company ("Glatfelter"), Respondent North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources ("Department"),
Respondent North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
("EMC"), and Respondent George T. Everett ("Director")
WITNESSETH
A. WHEREAS, Glatfelter is a Corporation organized and
existing pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
with its principal offices at 228 South Main Street, Spring
Grove, Pennsylvania;

B. WHEREAS, the Department is an agency of the State
..
of North Carolina created at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-279.1 and
empowered to administer a program of water pollution control
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143.211;
C. WHEREAS, the EMC is an agency of the State of
North Carolina created at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-282 and
empowered to issue permits pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
215.1;
D. WHEREAS, the Director is the officer of the
Department who is empowered to administer the permit program
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1 under delegation from the
EMC;
E. WHEREAS, Glatfelter, through its Ecusta Division,
owns and operates a pulp and paper mill in Transylvania County
("Ecusta Mill") which discharges treated wastewater to the French
Broad River as authorized by National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit No. NC0000078;
F. WHEREAS, on or about December 22, 1988, the
Department's Division of Environmental Management ("DEM"), acting
under delegation from the EMC, reissued to Glatfelter NPDES
Permit No. NC0000078 ("1988 Permit") authorizing the Ecusta Mill
to discharge to the French Broad River;
2

G. WHEREAS, the 1988 Permit included no provisions
pertaining to monitoring for or discharge of 2,3,7,8
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ("dioxin") at or from the Ecusta
Mill;
H. WHEREAS, since the issuance of the 1988 Permit,
DEM has requested that Glatfelter sample fish from the French
Broad River and analyze those samples for dioxin, and whereas
Glatfelter has complied voluntarily with all of DEM's requests
for fish monitoring;
I. WHEREAS, on or about April 20, 1989, DEM proposed
to modify the 1988 Permit to include a requirement that
Glatfelter monitor certain media for dioxin and other compounds,
which modification Glatfelter opposed;
J. WHEREAS, the EMC adopted a water quality standard
for dioxin in the French Broad River of .014 picograms of dioxin
per liter of river water ("pg/1") or ("ppq") effective October 1,
1989;
K. WHEREAS, monitoring under the 1990 Permit as
defined below, of which there have been two rounds, has not shown
dioxin to be detectable in the raw wastewater or treated effluent
from the Ecusta Mill;
3

L. WHEREAS, on or about November 28, 1989, PEM
proposed to modify the 1988 Permit to include certain conditions
pertaining to monitoring and control of dioxin that may be
contained in the Ecusta Mill's effluent, certain conditions
pertaining to monitoring of dioxin in fish in the French Broad
River, certain conditions pertaining to monitoring of dioxin in
certain other media, and certain other modifications unrelated to
dioxin;
M. WHEREAS, Glatfelter timely submitted comments to
the Department opposing modification of the 1988 Permit during
its term;
N. WHEREAS, on or about October 10, 1990, the
Director, under authority delegated by the EMC, issued a
modification to the 1988 Permit ("1990 Permit");
O. WHEREAS, on or about October 31, 1990, Glatfelter
requested this contested case hearing on the 1990 Permit;
P. WHEREAS, Respondents contend that a water quality
based effluent limitation for dioxin should be included in NPDES
Permit No. NC0000078 and presently intend to include such a
limitation in Permit B as described below; and whereas Glatfelter
disputes this contention and presently intends to contest
inclusion of a water quality based effluent limitation for dioxin

in NPDES Permit No. NC0000078 should Respondents purport to
.
include such a limitation in that permit; and
Q. WHEREAS, the parties desire to settle this
contested case without further litigation, without adjudication
of any of the issues presented, and without admission by any of
them;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally
bound, agree to the terms of this Settlement Agreement as set
forth below.
MODIFICATION OF THE 1988 PERMIT
1. Execution of this Settlement Agreement by
Respondents shall act as a retroactive modification of the 1990
Permit to read as set out in accompanying Exhibit A incorporated
herein and made a part hereof. This modified permit shall be
referred to in this Settlement Agreement as "Permit A."
2. Permit A shall be deemed to have been issued on
October 10, 1990, with an effective date of December 1, 1990, but
its effectiveness shall be deemed to have been stayed until
January 15, 1991.
3. Except for the issuance of Permit A, Respondents
shall not further modify NPDES Permit NC0000078 prior to the
5

expiration of Permit A (a) to include any conditions or
requirements pertaining to monitoring for or control of
discharges of dioxin or any related pollutant or (b) to alter the
expiration date of Permit A unless material new information
causes Respondents properly to find that "good cause" exists for
any such modification within the meaning of N.C. Admin. Code §
2H.0114(a). If Glatfelter requests or consents to a further
modification of Permit A, the provisions of this Paragraph 3
shall not apply to that further modification.
4. The submission by Glatfelter of a dioxin control
plan on or about May 15, 1991, shall be deemed to have satisfied
the requirement for submission of a dioxin control plan under
Part V.B of Permit A, unless DEM disapproves the plan.
5. The sampling design for fish tissue monitoring
submitted by Glatfelter to DEM on or about April 15, 1991, and
approved by DEM, shall satisfy the requirement of the second
paragraph of Part V.A of Permit A.
FIRST REISSUANCE OF PERMIT NC0000078
6. Without further application by Glatfelter,
Respondents may reissue NPDES Permit No. NC0000078 to Glatfelter,
at any time on or before May 3, 1993, provided that (a) the
reissued permit may not have an effective date prior to the
expiration of Permit A, (b) the reissued permit may not expire
6

after midnight on June 6, 1993, and (c) the reissued permit may
not differ from Permit A, as it may be modified, with respect to
any conditions other than (i) the permit's effective date, (ii)
the permit's expiration date, and (iii) conditions pertaining to
monitoring for or
the Ecusta Mill.
shall be referred
control of the discharge of dioxin at or from
The reissued permit described in this paragraph
to in this Settlement Agreement as "Permit B."
If Glatfelter requests
modification of Permit
or consents to the issuance or
B in a form other than as specified in
this Settlement Agreement, the provisions of this Paragraph 6
shall not apply to that issuance or modification.
7. The issuance of Permit B prior to the expiration
of Permit A shall not revoke or modify Permit A. Prior to the
effective date of Permit B, Permit B shall not subject Glatfelter
to any requirements additional to those imposed by Permit A.
8. If Respondents issue Permit B prior to May 3,
1993, Respondents may modify Permit B at any time on or before
May 3, 1993, without notice to or consent of Glatfelter,
provided, however, that Respondents shall not modify Permit B to
render its terms inconsistent with paragraph 6 of this Settlement
Agreement.
9. If Respondents issue Permit B, Respondents shall
provide Glatfelter with notice of the issuance of Permit B on May
7

3, 1993. Notwithstanding any actual or constructive notice that
Glatfelter may have of the issuance or modification of Permit B
prior to May 3, 1993, Glatfelter shall not be deemed to have been
notified of the issuance or any subsequent modification of Permit
B for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(e) until May 3,
1993.
10. If Respondents issue Permit B and if Glatfelter
requests a contested case hearing of Permit B pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. §§ 143-215.1(e) and 150B-23 ("Permit B Contested
Case") within the time provided following notice of the issuance
and any subsequent modification of Permit B as established in
Paragraph 9, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-3(a) shall apply to the terms
of Permit A.
SECOND REISSUANCE OF PERMIT NC0000078
11. Notwithstanding any action by any party with
respect to Permit B, Glatfelter may submit an application
("Renewal Application") at the time provided by 15 N.C. Admin.
Code § 2H.0105 for the renewal on such terms as may be
appropriate of NPDES Permit No. NC0000078 in the ordinary course.
upon the expiration of Permit A. The Renewal Application shall
address the necessity for and propriety of inclusion in NPDES
Permit No. NC0000078 of an effluent limitation for dioxin and, to
the extent such an effluent limitation is necessary and
appropriate, the proper limitation to be included in the permit.
8

Respondents shall receive, consider, and act upon the Renewal
Application in the ordinary course without regard to any action
by any party with respect to Permit B. Any reissuance of NPDES
Permit No. NC0000078 to Glatfelter upon consideration of the
Renewal Application, or any modifications or supplements to the
Renewal Application, shall be referred to in this Settlement
Agreement as "Permit C."
12. If Respondents issue Permit C during the pendency
of any Permit B Contested Case, the parties shall be deemed to
have settled the Permit B Contested Case on the following terms:
a. Permit C shall be deemed to have the same
effective date as Permit B.
b. The effectiveness of Permit C shall be deemed
to have been stayed during any period during which Permit B's
effectiveness has been stayed to the same extent as the
effectiveness of Permit B has been stayed.
c. For purposes of any contested case hearing on
Permit C (the "Permit C Contested Case"), for purposes of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 150B-3(a) the terms of Permit A shall be the
"existing license" which shall remain in effect until the last
date for application for judicial review of the terms of Permit
C.
d. The settlement of the Permit B Contested Case
shall have no issue preclusive or claim preclusive effect.
9

13. If Glatfelter requests a contested case hearing on
the issuance of Permit C and if Glatfelter contests a condition
or requirement of Permit C imposing an effluent limitation for
dioxin and if N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-3(a) stays the effectiveness
of any such condition or requirement, then Respondents, or any of
them that are respondents in the Permit C Contested Case, may
apply to the administrative law judge in the Permit C Contested
Case pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 65
preliminarily to enjoin the application of the section 150B-3(a)
stay to any condition or requirement of Permit C imposing an
effluent limitation for dioxin. In any such motion the burden on
Respondents shall be that normally placed on the State as the
movant pursuant to Rule 65. In any such motion the
administrative law judge shall not draw any inference adverse to
Respondents from the fact that Respondents entered into a
settlement of this contested case, however, the administrative
law judge may enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Glatfelter reserves the right to oppose any such request for
preliminary relief on any ground other than the inapplicability
of Rule 65 to the dispute.
EFFECT OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
14. This Settlement Agreement including paragraph 3
establishes all of the requirements that are or may be applicable
to Glatfelter pertaining to monitoring for, discharge of, or
control of the discharge of dioxin and related compounds by the
10

Ecusta Mill between the date of this Settlement Agreement and
midnight on June 6, 1993. If Glatfelter requests or consents to
the imposition of any further requirements pertaining to
monitoring for, discharge of, or control of the discharge of
dioxin or related compounds by the Ecusta Mill, the provisions of
this Paragraph 14 shall not apply to any such requirements.
15. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in
this Settlement Agreement constitutes the adjudication of any
claim or defense by any party with respect to any issue presented
by this contested case, nor shall this Settlement Agreement be
deemed to waive or otherwise to affect the parties' ability to
assert any such claim or defense in any other proceeding except
as specifically provided herein. The parties specifically
reserve the right to litigate in any appropriate forum any of the
following issues, which are enumerated without any intent to
exclude any unenumerated issues, in any proceeding between any of
them or between any of them and any third person:
a. whether section 304(1) of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(1), imposes any obligations upon Glatfelter
or Respondents with respect to the Ecusta Mill, and if so, what
obligations section 304(1) imposes;
b. whether in imposing any particular effluent
limitation for dioxin in NPDES Permit No. NC0000078 or whether in
adopting any water quality standard for dioxin upon which an
effluent limitation in NPDES Permit No. NC0000078 is based
11

Respondents or any of them would exceed their authority or
jurisdiction, act erroneously, fail to use proper procedure, act
arbitrarily or capriciously, or fail to act as required by law or
rule; and
c. whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-3(a) stays the
effectiveness of the contested terms of any contested reissuance
of an NPDES permit, and if so, whether that stay can be
preliminarily enjoined pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 65.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
16. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties concerning its subject matter.
However, in any proceeding in which the interpretation of a
provision of this Settlement Agreement concerning Permit B or the
Permit B Contested Case shall be an issue, parol evidence may be
introduced by any party to elucidate that provision of this
Settlement Agreement.
17. This Settlement Agreement shall be construed
according to the laws of the State of North Carolina.
18. This Settlement Agreement may not be modified
except in writing upon agreement of all parties.
19. Any notices or submissions pursuant to this
Settlement Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered
12

by courier or by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, notices and
submissions under NPDES Permit No. NC0000078 need not be made
pursuant to this paragraph. Notices or submissions shall be
deemed made upon receipt by the addressee. Notice or submission
by facsimile copy shall suffice and shall be effective upon
receipt of the facsimile copy, provided that the addressee
receives a ribbon copy within five business days. Notices and
submissions shall be addressed as follows:
a. if to Glatfelter,
Corporate Environmental Director
P.H. Glatfelter Company
228 South Main Street
Spring Grove, PA 17362
717-225-4711 (voice)
717-225-6834 (facsimile)
with copies to
Environmental Director -- Ecusta Mill
P.H. Glatfelter Company
1 Ecusta Road
P.O. Box 200
Pisgah Forest, NC 28678
704-877-2347 (voice)
704-877-2385 (facsimile)
and
David G. Mandelbaum, Esquire
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-665-8500 (voice)
215-864-8999 (facsimile); and
13

b. if to Respondents, or any of them,
Director, Division of Environmental .
Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
919-733-7015 (voice)
919-733-2622 (facsimile)
with a copy to
Special Deputy Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Archdale Building
512 North Salisbury Street, Room 1204
Raleigh,
NC 27611
919-733-5725 (voice)
919-733-0791 (facsimile).
20. This Settlement Agreement shall take effect upon
its execution on behalf of the EMC.
21. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon,
and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties, their successors,
and assigns.
14

22. Each undersigned agent represents and warrants
th
at he or she has the requisite authority to bind his or her
princi
pal. al. Each party other than the Director represents and
warrants
that all requisite actions have been taken to authorize
its entry into this Settlement Agreement.
By:
Attest:
Date:
By:
Attest:
Date:
P.H. GLATFELTER COMPANY
Richard W. Wand
Vice President
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
William W. Cobey
Secretary
15

By:
Attest:
Date:
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMISSIOp,
NPDES COMMITTEE
•
GEORGE T. EVERETT, DIRECTOR
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Date: //2/9/
16

D8246.A(LI)
Permit No. NC0000078
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NT
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.1, other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended,
ECUSTA DIVISION OF P.H. GLATFELTER COMPANY
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located
on Ecusta Road
South of U.S. Highway 64/276
Pisgah Forest
Transylvania County
to receiving waters designated as the French Broad River in the French Road
River Basin (Outfall No. 001) and the Davidson River in the French Broad River
Basin (Outfall No. 002 and 003)
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and V hereof.
This permit shall become effective December 1, 1990
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on
June 1, 1993
Signed this day
George T. Everett, Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental
Management Commission

Permit No. NC00000W$
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Ecusta Division of P.H. Glatfelter Company
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue the operation of an existing 27.5 Mwastewater
barseens,
treatment
cr
facility (Outfall No. 001) consisting ofgrit
influent pumps, primary clarifiers, aerated stabilization basin and
sludge dewatering facilities, plus an extended aeration wastewater
treatment system located off Ecusta Road South of U.S. Highways ge64/276 in
Pisgah Forest, Transylvania County (See Part III o
);
2. Discharge from said treatment works (001) into the French Broad River
which is classified Class "C" waters in the French Broad River Basin;
and
3. Discharge non -contact cooling water (0utfall Nos. 002 and 003) into the
Davidson River which is classified Class "C" waters in the French Broad
River Basin.
2

A. () . EFFLUENT LIMITATIO
NS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Summer (Apr. 1-Oct. 31) NPDES NO. NC0000078
• beginningon the effective date of the Permit and lasting until expiration,
During the period serial number(s) 001.
the Perrnittee is authorized to discharge from
thetPermittee as specified below:
discharges shall be limited and monitored by
Discharge Limitations
Monitoring
Other Units (Specify) Measurement Sample
Daily Avg. Daily Max. Frequency
Effluent Characteristics
Requirements
*Sample
Type Location
Flow
Recording
BOD, 5Day, 20 Degrees C
Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
D
Temperature
D
Conductivity
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Composite
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity
Priority Pollutants
Pentachlorophenols ****
Trichlorophenols ****
Dioxin (2378-TCDD)*****
Lbs/dav
Daily Avq. Daily Max.
*
**
* * *
I or E
4587.0 9174.0
11,585.0 22,448.0
27.5 MGD
20.0 mg/1 40.0 mg/1
4.0 mg/ 1 4.0 mg/ 1
Continuous
3/week
4/week
Monthly
Daily(+)
Daily (+)
Composite E
Composite E
CompositeE
Grab E,
Grab
U,
E, U,
* Grab U, D
Quarterly
Quarterly Composite E
Quarterly Grab E
Annually
Quarterly ComposjteE
Sample locations: E - Effluentloutfall U- Upstream at the French Influent, D - Downstream at
current location 10.8 miles below
Broad River near river mile 192
4.02
4.23
LS77.A(LI)

Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab.
Samples shall be collected three (3) times
per week during July, August, September, and October; weekly during April, May, and June;
and monthly during the remaining months of the year.
** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 21%; April, July, October,
January; See Part III, Condition G.
*** See Part III, Condition H.
**** Monitoring for pentachlorophenols and trichlorophenols is not required
based on the information contained in the Ecusta letter dated
February 24, 1988. If chlorophenolic-containing biocides are used at
the facility, monitoring for pentachlorophenols and trichlorophenols
shall commence immediately on a weekly basisatthe effluent by grab
samples for the duration of the useof the biocides and for a period
of not less than two months after discontinuing use of the biocides.
***** See Part V.
(+) Daily means every day on which a wastewater discharge occurs except Saturdays, Sundays
and legal holidays.
The pH shall not
be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and
shall be monitored daily(+) at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

A.().
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Winter (Nov. 1- Mar. 31) NPDES NO. NC0000078
During the period beginning on the effective date of the Permit and lasting until
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfalls(s) serial number(s)
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Requirements
*Sample
Type Location
Flow
Recording
BOD, 5Day, 20 Degrees C
Total Suspended Residue
NH3 as N
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
D
Temperature
D
Conductivity
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3
Composite
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity
Priority Pollutants ***
Pentachlorophenols ****
Trichlorophenols ****
Dioxin (2378-TCDD)*****
*
**
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Lbs/day Other Units (Specify) Measurement Sample,
Daily Avq. Daily Max. Daily Avq. Daily Max. Frequency
I or E
9174.0 18,348.0
11,585.0 22,448.0
+ TKN)
E
4.02
4.23
27.5 MGD Continuous
40.0 mg/1 80.0 mg/1 3/week
4/week
Monthly
Weekly
CompositeE
Composite E
Composite E
Grab E, U,
Daily(+) Grab E, U,
* Grab U, D
Quarterly
Quarterly Composite E
Quarterly Grab E
Annually E
Quarterly Composite E
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent,. D - Downstream at
current location 10.8 miles below outfall, U - Upstream at the French
Broad River near river mile 192

Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab. Samples shall be collected three (3) times
per week during July, August, September, and October; weekly during April, May, and June;
and monthly during the remaining months. of the year.
** Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 21%; April, July, October,
January; See Part III, Condition G.
*** See Part III, Condition H.
**** Monitoring for pentachlorophenols and trichlorophenols is not required
based on the information contained in the Ecusta letter dated
February 24, 1988. If chlorophenolic-containing biocides are used at
the facility, monitoring for pentachlorophenols and trichlorophenols
shall commence immediately on a weekly basis at the effluent by grab
samples for the duration of the use of the biocides and for a period
of not less than two months after discontinuing use of the biocides.
***** See Part V.
(+) Daily means every day on which a wastewater discharge occurs except Saturdays, Sundays
and legal holidays.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and
shall be monitored daily(+) at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

**
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Final NPDES NO. NC0000078
Duringthe period beginning on the. effective date of the permit and lasting until
serial number(s) 002.
expiration the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s)
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Requirements
Lbs/day Other Units (Specify) Measurement Sample,
Daily Ava. Daily Max. Frequency
*Sample
Type Location
Flow
Temperature
Residual Chlorine
Daily Avq. Daily Max.
THERE SHALL BE NO CHROMIUM, ZINC, OR COPPER ADDED TO THE COOLING WATER.
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream
The temperature of the effluent shall be such as not to cause an increase in the
temperature of the receiving stream of more than 2.8 degrees C and in no case cause the
ambient water temperature to exceed 29 degrees C.
The Permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division of Environmental Management
prior to utilizing any biocide in the cooling water (See Part III of this Permit):
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.

There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

**
A.(). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Final NPDES NO. NC0000078
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until
expiration the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 003.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Requirements
*Sample
Type Location
Flow
Temperature
Residual Chlorine
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Lbs/day Other Units (Specify) Measurement Sample
Daily Avq. Daily Max.
Daily Avq. Daily Max. Frequency
THERE SHALL BE NO CHROMIUM, ZINC, OR COPPER ADDED TO THE COOLING WATER.
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream
The temperature of the effluent shall be such as not to cause an increase in the
temperature of the receiving stream of more than 2.8 degrees C and in no case cause the
ambient water temperature to exceed 29 degrees C.
The permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division of Environmental Management
prior to utilizing any biocide in the cooling water (See Part III of this Permit)..
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.

There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.

•
Part V
Dioxin Monitoring Requirements
A. Dioxin Monitoring
All analysis must be performed using the appropriate method of analysis
specified in proposed EPA Method 1613, 56 Fed. Reg. 5090 (February 7, 1991),
or another equivalent analytical protocol approved by DEM. The method
detection limit shall be considered to be 10 picograms per liter. If the
measurement is below detection limits, the quantity is considered to be zero.
The dioxin isomer to be monitored and limited by this permit is 2,3,7,8 TCDD.
This paragraph supersedes Part II.C.4 of this permit with respect to dioxin.
Fish tissue analysis will be performed, as a minimum, at one station
established upstream of the discharge and at two stations downstream. The
sampling design for fish tissue monitoring is to be submitted to the Division
of Environmental Management no later than 90 days after the effective date of
the permit. Upon approval, the monitoring plan becomes an enforceable part of
the permit. All dioxin data collected as part of this monitoring requirement
will be reported within three months after collection or within two months of
receipt by the permittee of results from the analytical laboratory, whichever
is later.
The permittee shall perform the following analyses for dioxin in
addition to monitoring the effluent as specified on the effluent pages:
1. Fish tissue analysis Annually (TCDD and TCDF)
2. Influent to wastewater
treatment facility See C below
3. Primary sludge from wastewater
treatment facility See C below
This paragraph supercedes Part II.D.4 of this permit with respect to dioxin
and furan.
B. Dioxin Control Plan
Within 120 days of the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall submit to the DEM a dioxin control plan (DCP). The DCP shall present
any proposed process modifications intended to reduce the discharge of
dioxins, along with projected implementation schedules and predicted effects.
Additionally, the DCP must also present the provisions expected to address
suspended solids and chlorine minimization programs. Upon approval by the
29

fl
permitting authority, the DCP implementation schedule shall become an
enforceable part of the permit. t.
C. Supplemental Monitoring
1. Within 60 days of the effective date of the Settlement
Agreement
ntaltentered
h d
in P.H. Glatfelter Co. v. North Carolina Department of Environment.
Natural Resources, OAH Docket No. 90 ERR 1097, the permittee shall submit to
DEM a plan ("Supplemental Monitoring Plan") for the sampling and analysis for
dioxin of (a) influent to the mill's wastewater treatment facility and (b)
primary sludge from the mill's wastewater treatment facility. The
Supplemental Monitoring Plan shall be designed to the linetest degree
concentrations of
reasonably practicable to establish and report base
dioxin in influent and primary sludge and to measure and to report to the
greatest degree reasonably practicable, the extent to which any process change
at the mill reasonably anticipated to affect the inadvertent generation of
dioxin during the bleaching of pulp at the mill affects the concentration of
dioxin in the mill's wastewater treatment plant influent or primary sludge.
2. Upon approval of the Supplemental Monitoring Plan by DEM, it shall
become an enforceable part of this permit.

.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COS OF TRANSYLVANIA
P.H. GLATFELTER COMPANY.
Petitioner.
v•
FILED, r.:-r!CE OF
ADMIN N1 AR1NG$
Orr 31 1017 Alf 'SO
IN THE OFFICE or
. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
EHR
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENTCOMMISSION.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT. HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, and
GEORGE T. EVERETT. DIRECTOR, .
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT,
Respondents.
RECEIVTD
c 4
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
REQUEST FOR CO TED
CASE REAR/NO
RECEIVED
OCT 3 i 1990
EHNR
- GENERAL COUNSEL
COMES NOW Petitioner. • P.N. Glatfelter Company' ("Glatfelter'')
and submits this Request for.Contested Case Hearing challenging
.the actions of the North Carolina Environmental Management -
Commission, North Carolina Dopartraent of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources. Division of Environmental Management. and
George T. Everett. Director. Division of Environmental Management
(collectively. "Respondents") in. purporting to modify
Glatfelter' a NPDES Permit No. NC0000078. Copies of the existing
NPDES Permit No. NC0000078 and the permit es modified are
0/1 Pam..; f 4\Jauq, (JD ( f (
46
attached hereto as Appendices() an = reepectively.
This Request for Contested Ca.. Hearing is filed pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. S.1503-23 and other relevant provisions- of
Chapters 1508 and 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes.

•
r.
% !•: i vtiw
�'? ti • 'fir <'y ae
1. Glatfelter's current NPDES permit for its Ncueta Mill
was issued on December 22. 1988, became effective on January 1,
1989, and will expire on November 30, 1993.
2. On or about November 28, 1989, Respondents issued a
draft modifioat .on to Glatfelter's permit ("Draft Modification")
which included, Inter alit, an expiration date of June 6, 1993,
abbreviated from the November 30, 1993 expiration date in the
existing permit; effluent limitations for the discharge of
2.3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ("dioxin")1 sampling,
analysis, and reporting requirements for effluents to the
receiving stream, as well as influent to, and sludge from, the
wastewater treatment facility, and tissue from fish taken o
Y t from
points upstream and downstream of the discharge point from the
wastewater treatment facility; and a requirement that Glatfelter
prepare a dioxin control plan, incorporating process and
treatment changes and an enforceable implementation schedule
within 120 days of the effective date of the modification.
3. A fact sheet appended to the Draft Modification in
accordance with 15A N.C.A.C. 2H.0108 stated as the basis for
modifying Clatfelter'e permit, "The dioxin limit is being added
in accordance with the provisions of section 304(1) of the Clean
Water Act."
4. On or about October 10. 1990, Respondente issued a
purported final modification to Glatfelter's NPDES permit ("Final
Modification") , incorporating the conditions of the Draft
2

•
•
•
r
•
•
•
Modification. A cover letter accompanying Glatfilter's copy of
the Final Modification states that the Final Modification vas
issued••"j_1-jn. accordance with the requirements of section 304(1)
of the Clean Water Act."
'5. The Final Modification to Glatfelter's NPDES permit
deprives -Glatfelter of property and otherwise substantially
.
prejudices Glatfelter's rights. Furthermore, by purporting to
modify Glatfelter's permit, Respondents have exceeded their
authority or jurisdiction, acted erroneously. failed to use
proper procedure. acted arbitrarily and capriciously and failed
to act as required bylaw or rule.
6. The Ecusta Mill is the only mill in the United States
that uses flax rather than wood to produce pulp, and that
discharges its treated wastewater directly to a river.
7. Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
11314(1) , does not authorize the modification of Glatfelter's
NPDES permit. Respondents did not include the Ecusta Mill on the
list of those facilities discharging toxic pollutants in amounts
believed to impair water quality submitted to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") pursuant to section
304(1) in February 1989.
8: The fact that the EPA subsequently purported to include
the Ecu st 1, _the .section-304 40.4 (C )-- •et.��t `pr ttai�crxtsid -
in place of Respondents' list does not establish cause for the
modification of Glatfelter's NPDES permit within the rules of the
Environmental Management Commission ("EMC Rules").
3

9. Under the EMC Rules, NPDES permits may be modified for
cause, as defined in EPA's modification regulations. 40 C.F.R.
•
122.62 (1990). or for other good cause. 15A N.C.A.C. 2$.0114.
The federal regulation, incorporated by reference by the EMC
Rules, states that a permit can be modified during its term to
incorporate.a new water quality standard jaggy if the permittee
requests such modification. fat 40 C.P.R 1122.62(a)(3).
Similarly. no good cause as enumerated in the EMC Rules
authorizes the Final Modification.
10. The terms of Glatfelter's existing permit providing for
reopening of the permit do not authorize modification on the
basis of section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act. The Limitations
Reopener at paragraph E of Part III is expressly limited to
effluent guidelines or water quality standards iesued or approved
under sections 302(b)(2)(c) and (d) 1212 for 301(b)(2)(c) and
(D)J, 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act.
11. The Final Modification deprives Glatfelter of property,
and substantially prejudices Glatfelter's rights becauee the
Final Modification shortens the term of the permit by nearly six
months and mandates the expenditure of substantial sums of money
and resources in requiring Glatfelter to conduct additional
monitoring, to prepare a dioxin control plan within 120 days, and
to attempt to implement the dioxin control plan on or before
June 5. 1993,
4

•
-b.
•
•
12. Additionally. the effluent limitation for dioxin in the
Final Modification is so low as to be analytically undetectable
using currently available technology.
13. In any event. available evidence fails to establish
V that discharges from the Ecusta Mill are causing or contributing
•
to violations of this water quality standard for dioxin.
14. Furthermore; the water quality standard for dioxin
purportedly adopted by the EMC its not valid as a rule, or,
`'' alternatively, is invalid as a basis for modifying NPDES Permit
No. NC0000078. because, jnte_r ALA, the EMC failed to properly
consider (1) new information regarding the environmental effects
of dioxin and (2) whether the standard was essential to the
contemplated beet usage of the French Broad River in light of the
purpose of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina
General Statutes, which includes encouragement of the expansion
of employment opportunities and the providing of a permanent
foundation for healthy industrial development, as well as the
protection of human health and prevention of injury to plant and
• animal life. Thus, the effluent limitation for dioxin as adopted
at 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0208(b) should be declared void in this case
in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-33(b)(9) as being in
excess of statutory authority, and further as not reasonably
necessary to perform a function assigned to Respondents or to
enaL• le, cox facilitate a program or policy.
15. Moreover, EPA'a determinations to place the Ecusta Mill
and the mill's receiving stream on its section 304(1) lists and
5

to promulgate an individual control strategy for the mill, are
themselves invalid because they are arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion and otherwise contrary to law. Among other
thing', EPA failed to evaluate properly the affects of the Ecusta
Mill'' discharges on water quality.
For these reasons, Glatfelter asks that Respondents'
purported Final Modification be denied, and that NPDES No.
NC0000078 not be modified. Glatfelter hereby requests that an
Administrative Law Judge in the Office of Administrative Hearings
g
be assigned to hear this matter pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
1508-78.
Glatfelter reserves the right, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
$ 1508-28. to depose individuals, including Respondent George T
4 T.
Everett, involved in the decision -making process. Glatfelter
also reserves the right to request subpoenas and subpoenas duce'
tecum for the said individuals, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
1150E-27.
6

Cl'atfelter requests that this document be
affidavit ;submitted on behalf' of Glatfelter to
affidavit is required.
This the 1- day of t 7 D I ..-
1990.
•
•
•
Of Counaea:
David G. Mandelbaum, Esquire
Mary Jude Pigeley, Esquire
Ballard, Spahr, Andrews
& Ingersoll
30 S. 17th Street, 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
[phone]
treated ' "' • =
the �
extent Such
MOORE & VAN ALLEN
By:
cries D. Case
State Bar No. 7625
8ys�
Crai • A. 8romby
State = No. 6526
Post Office Box 26507
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR P.H. GLATFELTER
COMPANY
7

•
•
ie
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTYOF-YORK
VERIFICATION
I
•:r1
• The undersigned, M.A. Johnson II, being first duly sworn, deposes and
says that he/she is Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of P. H. Glatfelter Company and is authorized to verify this Request for
a Contested Case Hearing; that he/she has read the foregoing, and to his/her
personal knowledge the matters and statements contained therein are true, except
as to those matters or statements made upon information and belief, and as to
those he/she believes them to be true.
This 29th day of October, 1990.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 29th day of October, 1990.
.s9
m�
otary Pub is
My Commission Expires:
January 20, 1994
GLAOYS MNotarizI Seal
. MILLIR, Ncsary F..bUt
Spring Greve Borough. Yore Cc..rsy
SI f fo111a1iii'°c Expires Amory 22. 1994
f
•
• .. J..
BY
Name: M. A. Johns n I
Title: Executive Y ce President,
Treasurer nd Chief
Financial icer

F•
•
_4
t
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
--It is hereby -certified that the foregoing Request For
Contested Case Hearing has been served this day by hand
delivering copies thereof to the offices of:
Office of Administrative
Capehart-Crocker House
424 North Blount Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
John C. Hunter, Esq%
Office of General Counsel
North Carolina Department Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street, Room 1209
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
This the
Hearings
276
se
_ day of October, 1990.
‘aeigliS5rome;fr4Itli--
.