NC0000078_Wasteload Allocation_19910523

NPDES DOCYNENT 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:
May 23, 1991
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re Terse side

Dt(- 0 s -o'
RECEIVED
MAY 2 8 1991
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Naturtll;;RAsarSUPPORT MAN(
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph. D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
May 23, 1991
Mr. R. J. Gussman, Director
Environmental Affairs
Ecusta, a division of P. H. Glatfelter Co.
PO Box 200
Pisgah Forest, NC 28768
Dear Mr. Gussman:
Subject: NPDES Permit No. NC0000078
Dioxin Control Plan
Ecusta, a div. of P. H. Glatfelter Co.
Transylvania County
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the Dioxin Control Plan from Ecusta on May
16, 1991. This plan is submitted in accordance with the requirements of Part V. Condition B. of
the NPDES Permit issued on October 10, 1990. The division will review the plan and notify
Ecusta of any deficiencies or its approval in the near future.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
M. Dale Overcash, PE
NPDES Permits Supervisor
cc: Mr. Roy Davis (with attachments)
Mr. Ken Eagleson (with attachments)
Mr. Trevor Clements (with attachments)
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

ECUSta a division of P. H. GLATFELTER CO.
P.O. BOX 200 • PISGAH FOREST. NORTH CAROLINA 28768 • TELEPHONE [phone]
May 14, 1991
Mr. Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject: Dioxin Control Plan
NPDES No. NC0000078
Transylvania County
Dear Mr. Tedder:
r.
ae,
MAY 16 1991
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
Attached are two copies of the Dioxin Control Plan for the Pisgah Forest
mill of the P. H. Glatfelter Company in Pisgah Forest, North Carolina.
The submittal of this plan is in response to Section V of our current
NPDES permit.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 704-877-2347, or
Dr. C. Neal Carter at 717-225-4711, extension 2499.
Sincerely,
ECUSTA DIVISION
P. HA Glatfelter Company
Gussman, Director
Environmental Affairs
RJG:mh
Attachments
Copy to C. N. Carter
D.. W. Monk
R. W. Wand
0(‘

Dioxin Control Plan
Prepared for:
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Ecusta Division
P. H. GLATFELTER COMPANY
Pisgah Forest, North Carolina
May 1991

CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Currently Instituted Dioxin Control Measures
2.1 Dioxin Precursor Minimization Program
2.2 Suspended Solids Minimization Program
2.3 Chlorine Reduction Program
2.4 Purchased Pulp Dioxin Minimization Program
3. Current and Future Dioxin, Chlorine, and Suspended
Solids Minimization Studies
4. Implementation Plan and Schedule

1. INTRODUCTION
This dioxin control plan describes the investigates that
have been and will be undertaken to characterize the sources, if
any, and potential control measures to minimize the production,
if any, of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ("dioxin") at the
P. H. Glatfelter Company's Ecusta Mill at Pisgah Forest, North
Carolina. This dioxin control plan was developed in compliance
with Part V of the NPDES permit recently issued to Glatfelter
which in part states:
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 permitting authority, the DCP
implementation schedule shall become an enforceable
part of the permit.
This dioxin control plan describes 1) the dioxin control
measures taken to date by Glatfelter at its Ecusta Mill, 2) the
status of ongoing chlorine minimization and dioxin control
investigations, and 3) how Glatfelter proposes to evaluate and
respond to information generated by its investigations of further
dioxin control measures.
Glatfelter notes that the Ecusta Mill does not discharge
dioxin in detectable concentrations. Indeed, Glatfelter has been
unable to detect dioxin in raw waste water from the Ecusta Mill.
Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that the Ecusta Mill
discharges dioxin in concentrations of concern, nor is there any
reason to believe that a dioxin control plan is necessary or
appropriate for the Ecusta Mill.
Furthermore, the Ecusta Mill is not a typical pulp and paper
mill. It is one of only two mills in North America that produces
paper products from flax straw. As such, many of the chemical
processes used in the production and bleaching of pulp are unique
to the Ecusta Mill. Therefore, only a fraction of the knowledge
gained at other mills regarding the steps that can be taken to
reduce dioxin formation is known to be applicable to the Ecusta
Mill.
Nevertheless, the Ecusta Mill has and will continue to take
reasonable steps to reduce the possibility that dioxin is formed
during the pulp and paper making processes.
1

Section 2 of this plan describes the dioxin control measures
that have already been instituted at the Ecusta Mill. Current
and future dioxin, chlorine, and suspended solids minimization
studies are described in Section 3, and the implementaticsn plan
and schedule are included in Section 4.
2

2. CURRENTLY INSTITUTED DIOXIN CONTROL MEASURES
Glatfelter has already taken several important measures to
reduce dioxin precursors, minimize the use of chlorine, and
decrease the amount of suspended solids in the effluent. If the
mill generated dioxin, these actions would be expected to reduce
the amount of dioxin discharged in the mill's effluent.
2.1 DIOXIN PRECURSOR MINIMIZATION PROGRAM
Defoamers are used in the pulping and bleaching processes to
prevent liquor spills from open washer vats and filtrate tanks
and for the proper operation of washing equipment. Oil based
brown stock defoamers have been shown to contain relatively high
concentrations of dioxin precursors which can be carried over
into the bleach plant where the addition of elemental chlorine
may result in the formation of dioxin. In order to eliminate
this risk, Glatfelter has replaced all oil based defoamers with
water based defoamers.
One of the chemical and fiber recovery and conservation
processes that has been in effect at the pulp mill for several
years is a chemical reuse system designed to recycle all liquid
and fiber spills from the digester area back to the flax pulping
and bleaching operation. In November, 1989 this system was
modified to eliminate the potential recycling of oils and greases
(potentially containing dioxin precursors) being used in the
digester area.
2.2 SUSPENDED SOLIDS MINIMIZATION PROGRAM
Dioxin in pulp and paper mill waste waters has been shown to
adsorb on suspended solids in the waste water. A negligible
fraction of the dioxin will dissolve. Accordingly, a pulp and
paper mill can remove dioxin from its effluent by removing
suspended solids.
Glatfelter's waste water treatment system consists of
primary clarification with settleable solids removal, extended
aeration in a 275 million gallon aeration basin, and suspended
solids settling in a 69 million gallon settling area or quiescent
zone. Clarified effluent is discharged to the French Broad River
3

through a cascade aerator. This system provides excellent BOD,
COD, and suspended solids removal.
There are minimal changes that can be made to the ate
water treatment system to decrease the already low levels of
suspended solids in the final effluent from the Ecusta Mill.
Nevertheless, Glatfelter has taken two important steps to lower
the level of suspended solids entering and leaving the primary
waste water treatment system.
To reduce the fiber loading to the primary waste water
treatment system, the fiber recovery systems in the paper mill
are being rebuilt to increase their removal and recycling
efficiency. These in -plant controls, such as Savealls and Fiber
Savers, redirect fibers that would otherwise enter the waste
water treatment system back into the paper making process.
To reduce the quantity of suspended solids entering the
aeration stabilization basin from the primary treatment system, a
new polymer addition system has been added to the belt press and
centrifuge sludge dewatering system.
2.3 CHLORINE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Some researchers believe that reductions in the use of
elemental chlorine during pulp bleaching will reduce dioxin
formation in a pulp and paper mill. While the Ecusta Mill is not
known to discharge dioxin in concentrations of concern,
Glatfelter has instituted a chlorine multiple monitoring program. r
Several industry studies have suggested that dioxin formation is
minimized if the chlorine multiple can be maintained below 0.17.
While Glatfelter has substantially reduced the chlorine multiple
at the Ecusta mill, Glatfelter is presently uncertain whether it
can achieve and maintain a multiple below 0.17. It must also be
noted that it has never been demonstrated that such a multiple in
a flax mill minimizes dioxin formation or that such a multiple
can be achieved,in a flax furnish mill without compromising
product quality.
4

2.4 PURCHASED PULP DIOXIN MINIMIZATION PROGRAM
The principal source of dioxin at the Ecusta mill a_dioxin
in purchased pulp. In this regard the Ecusta Mill resembles the
hundreds of purchased pulp mills in the United States more than
it resembles the 104 bleached kraft pulp and paper mills that the
Environmental Protection Agency has targeted for special
scrutiny; the Ecusta Mill is not one of the 104 mills.
Glatfelter, as well as many other paper mills, has placed a
limit on the concentration of dioxin that may be present in
purchased pulp. Glatfelter's current limit on dioxin in
purchased pulp is 10 parts per trillion (ppt). Recently, most
lots of purchased pulp have dioxin concentrations less than or
equal to 2 ppt.
Glatfelter notes that fibers from purchased pulp do not
escape the paper making process at as high a rate as fibers
escape from the pulping process; fibers of a size to escape have
already done so at the pulp mill from which Glatfelter purchased
the pulp. Accordingly dioxin in purchased pulp does not pose a
serious problem. As noted above, notwithstanding the presence of
dioxin in purchased pulp, neither the Ecusta Mil's raw waste
water nor its effluent contains detectable dioxin.
5

3. CURRENT AND FUTURE DIOXIN, CHLORINE, AND SUSPENDED
SOLIDS MINIMIZATION STUDIES
The Ecusta Mill currently uses a CEH (elemental Cirturine
stage, sodium hydroxide Extraction stage, and a calcium
I pochlorite stage) bleaching sequence. After the chlorination
stage, sodium hydroxide is added to the pulp without washing.
Following the E and H stages the liquid extracted from the pulp
is discharged to the sewer. This spent liquid has the potential
to contain dioxin. Glatfelter is currently in the process of
conducting a series of bench -top experiments to compare our
current CEH bleaching sequence to CHH and C/D EH sequences. The
C/D stage is a chlorination stage with fifty percent chlorine
dioxide substitution. The extractions following the second and
third stages, as well as the finished pulp will be analyzed for
dioxin. Depending on the results of these studies, additional
evaluations will be conducted to determine the benefits of oxygen
delignification prior to bleaching and oxygen addition during the
extraction stage.
•
6

4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Reducing the risk that dioxin is formed and subsequently
discharged is an iterative, repetitive process of moninting,
evaluation, experimentation, trials, evaluation, implementation,
and monitoring. The results of any step in the process affect
the subsequent steps and the ultimate success of any single
dioxin reduction activity, as well as other related or unrelated
dioxin reduction activities.
While the P. H. Glatfelter Company remains unconvinced that
dioxin at the low concentrations found in other paper mill's
waste waters represents a significant human health or ecological
risk, and while the Ecusta Mill does not discharge dioxin at
concentrations of concern, the company is nevertheless committed
to reducing dioxin to levels that are as low as practicable.
To that end, Glatfelter will continue the efforts outlined
in the preceding sections. If Glatfelter identifies further
steps that would reduce the risk of dioxin formation and
discharge that are practicable and technically feasible without
compromising product quality, Glatfelter will implement them as
promptly as possible
7

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 2, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Safrit
FROM: Ruth Swanek ?C3
SUBJECT: Ecusta Division of P.H. Glatfelter Adjudications
NPDES No. NC0000078
Transylvania County
Per your recent request, I have reviewed the adjudicatory
comments recently submitted by Ecusta for the dioxin limits
recently added to its NPDES permit. I have addressed the following
dioxin items:
12. The limit assigned in the NPDES permit is below the
detection level. For compliance purposes, the facility must use
the EPA approved sampling method which has the lowest detection
level.
13. There is no evidence that the Ecusta Mill is causing
violations of the water quality standard instream. However, the
standard is below the analytical detection level, and limits are
set using the design flow of the facility. Since the facility
operates below design flow, a safety factor is built into the ana-
lysis.
14. Ecusta believes that the dioxin standard is not valid.
However, Ecusta had its opportunity to comment during the triennial
standards review process when the dioxin standard was first pro-
posed. The EMC adopted the standard despite objections raised.b.i4
the pulp and4paper industy, and EPA subsequently approved the-ntg
standard. Recently, the EMC voted not to change the standard dveati
after hearing the industry's new evidence. Since the effluent
limits were derived using standard operating procedures, and both
the EMC and EPA have upheld the dioxin standard, there appears to
be no basis for rescinding the dioxin limit for the subject permit.
Please call me if you have any questions.

MEMO
TO: VO---LCXrt+
U (-7G c 04_ CC(C-Cod— cAcThr-
4-ethvMQakkizA --e-Co-LLD
DATE•
SUBJECT:
giz-6016LO
ect+c-t 't•csc,;A
4u2- Vre,(ktic•- Rtir,2A LieSlyc
Ea.)8+c, (K) c 00000-7 , v\e,L,L)
S VvlPsre-- Cd5gr)
1)(a-4a1a6i- CCACAJAcjef ECk4ac,-1 at c.L\,
v-v2AA,6.3
Tct12_ v\t2.(A)
0.000 5-S Y137)
-Ao-r-(-1352
—L Iuck/A.C.-t (or 7:,t) ("Adi-J--vvisLAA crc)
cot (( vy-lipt-1
North Carolina Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 14, 1989
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Facility
Dale Overcash
Trevor
Thomas
Bleach
Clements'
Stocktonle
kraft paper mill dioxin limits
Receiving
Stream
Design Flow
(mgd)
Alpha Cellulose
Weyerhauser - New Bern
Weyerhauser - Plymouth
Federal Paperboard
Ecusta
Lumber River
Neuse River
Roanoke River
Cape Fear River
French Broad River
The Roanoke flow is average
sumes no runoff.
flow for the period
QA
(cfs)
1.80 867
37 4300
55 7674
50 4980
27.5
7Ho
of record @ Roanoke
dioxin
limit
(ng/1)
0.004373
0.001066
0.001277
0.000915
U , v vv 2-5't
Rapids, as-

NPDES FACILITY AND PERMIT DATA
UPDATE OPTION TRXID 5NU KEY NC0000078
PERSONAL DATA FACILITY APPLYING FOR PERMIT REGION
FACILITY NAME> ECUSTA DIV. OF P.H.GLATFELTER COUNTY> TRANSYLVANIA 01
ADDRESS: MAILING (REQUIRED) LOCATION (REQUIRED)
STREET: P.O. 200 STREET: ECUSTA PAPER & FILM GROUP
CITY: PISGAH FOREST ST NC ZIP 28768 CITY: PISGAH FOREST ST NC ZIP 28768
TELEPHONE [phone] DATE FEE PAID: 02/29/88 AMOUNT: 150.00
STATE CONTACT> HARRIS PERSON IN CHARGE R. J. GUSSMAN
1=PROP0SED,2=EXIST,3=CLOSED 2 1=MAJ0R,2=MINOR 1 1=MUN,2=NON-MUN 2
LAT: 3515050 LONG:
)ATE APP RCVD
)ATE STAFF REP REQS
)ATE STAFF REP RCVD
)ATE TO P NOTICE
)ATE OT AG COM REQS
)ATE OT AG COM RCVD
)ATE TO EPA
)ATE FROM EPA
08241320
02/29/88
03/01/88
03/14/88
12/04/89
/ /
/ /
12/05/89
/ / EXPIRATION DATE
N=NEW,M=MODIFICATION,
WASTELOAD REQS
WASTELOAD RCVD
SCH TO ISSUE
DATE DRAFT PREPARED
DATE DENIED
DATE RETURNED
DATE ISSUED
R=REISSUE> R
03/01/88
08/05/88
01/18/90
08/10/88
/ /
/ /
/ /
11/30/93
ASSIGN/CHANGE PERMIT
FEE CODE ( 1 ) 1=(>10MGD),2=(>1MGD),3=(>0.1MGD),4=(<0.1MGD),5=SF,6=(GP25,64,79),
7=(GP49,73)8=(GP76)9=(GP13,34,30,52)0=(NOFEE) DIS/C 18 CONBILL ( )
;OMMENTS: 05 EFFECTIVE 1/1/89
MESSAGE: ADFE191 *** NO MODIFICATIONS MADE TO SCREEN ***

ark, :1/ L /24 1/ 6:152,511A.2-._
lews.74,$ ? 61/.914/74i C
ZU1,— Cos a
7. 5 6016.0 C i..2 6 cgs
2 c74
0000/i n i
C tA) 5 -z eA f 10,6 cts
I .0000 /
9Z,6C{
571.6c6*.0000/9csa, ,odg?.?
12.6 c yz,G
Drok,�
, 000,9S n 42, # , aooa n a
�Z.6c1 * o)

SUBJECT:
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development

Ecusta a division of P. i3. GLATFELTER CO.
P.O. BOX 800 • PIBOAH FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA 128788 • TELEPHONE (76•) 8 7-H11
COPY TO: EAGLESON
CLEMENTS
RAMSEY
WESTALL
VIA Hand Delivery
Mr. Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
512 North'Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Tedder:
June 26, 1989
JUN 2'7 1989
WATET
5:.
•
JTY
Re: Comments of the Ecusta Division of the
P.H. Glatfelter Company Concerning Proposed
Modifications to NPDES Permit No, NC0000078
Regarding Dioxin Monitoring, Dioxin Control,
and Dioxin Reopener for the Pisgah Forest
Transylvania County Mill
We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on the dioxin issue on Thursday.
On April 28, 1989, the Ecusta Division of the P.H. Glatfelter Company ("Ecusta")
received the Division of Environmental Management's ("DEM's") letter of April
24th enclosing proposed modifications to Ecusta's NPDES Permit No. NC0000078
dated December 22, 1988, authorizing discharges to the French Broad and Davidson
Rivers ("Permit"). Please accept this letter as Ecusta's comments on the
proposed modifications to the permit.
DEM has proposed three modifications to the permit, although your letter of
April 24th refers only to the first. First, DEM proposes to -require frequent
monitoring for all isomers of chloro-dibenzo dioxins and chloro-dibenzofurans
in (1) influent to Ecusta's wastewater treatment facility; (2) Ecusta's sludge;
(3) Ecusta's landfill leachate; (4) Ecusta's effluent; and (5) fish tissue
upstream and downstream from Ecusta's discharge. Second, DEM proposes to
require Ecusta to develop a dioxin control plan. Third, DEM proposes to
include a dioxin reopener in the permit.
For the reasons stated below, the proposed modifications to the permit are not
presently justified. The April 24th letter recites no "good cause" for this
modification within the meaning of Rule .0114 governing modifications of NPDES
permits. Moreover, the modifications are premature. Ecusta has voluntarily
agreed to retain a consultant to conduct dioxin monitoring in fish tissue in
the French Broad River. DEM would act with unreasonable haste to require
any modifications to the permit prior to receipt of the results of this fish
tissue monitoring. Indeed, DEM would act with unreasonable haste to adopt
these modifications without extending the commend period until. 30 days
following receipt of the monitoring results to accommodate incorporation of
those results into Ecusta's comments. Also, by proposing this modification
without regard to the results of the fish monitoring that DEM had earlier
requested, DEM tends to discourage voluntary responses to its requests; the
fish sampling here evidently was not relevant to DEM's development of the
proposed modification.

1
Page 2
a More specifically, the dioxin monitoring proposed by DEM ig overbroad and
unauthorized by any facts or the applicable regulations. Development of a
dioxin control plan cannot be required until it is known that the Ecusta mill
discharges dioxin at all, let alone in concentrations of concern. Finally,
the permit presently includes a general reopener that tracks the requirements
of Rule .0114; any special reopener for dioxin would represent an unauthorized
4 circumvention of the procedural protections afforded by that regulation.
•3
1. No "Good Cause" Exists' to Modify the Permit
Under Rule .0114, in order to modify an NPDES permit in' this state, DEM must
demonstrate "good cause." Section II.A.4. of the permit tracks this require-
ment. The regulation and the permit give four examples of "good cause":
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of (the Permit);
b. Obtaining (the Permit) by misrepresentation or failure
to disclose fully all relevant facts;
c. A change in any condition that requires either a
temporary or permanent reduction or elimination
of the authorized discharge; (and)
d, Information newly acquired by (DEM) indicating the
discharge poses a threat to human health or welfare.
DEM's April 24.th letter recites two facts to justify the proposed modifications.
First, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") apparently
prepared "recent guidance". Second, EPA apparently issued a draft permit for
another paper mill. Neither of these facts constitutes "good cause" in the
circumetancee.
The examples of "good cause" included in the regulations all pertain either to
violations of law by the permittee or new facts learned about the discharge.
DEM cites only to informal regulatory guidance and preliminary permitting
actions taken by EPA with respect to other mills. No action by.EPA represents
a new fact regarding Ecusta's compliance with its permit or the characteristics
of the discharge. No action by EPA could therefore constitute "good cause".
EPA guidance and the precedent of other permitting decisions are to be incor-
porated upon reiasuance of the permit; they do not justify modification of the
permit during its term.
Section II.A.5 of the permit reinforces this conclusion. That section establishes
a special exception to the "good cause" requirement for toxic pollutants in the
event that EPA takes particular regulatory action. If EPA establishes a toxic
effluent standard or prohibition pursuant to Section 307(a) of the Federal Clean
Water Act, that standard or prohibition would apply to Ecuata under Section II.A.5
of the permit. However, action by EPA short of establishing such an effluent
standard or prohibition does not Buff ice to modify the permit. EPA's actions
hare are not rule making under Section 307(a) and they cannot therefore justify
modification of the permit during its term.

Page 3
• 2, The Proposed Modification Is Premature
An recited in DEM'e April 24th letter, Ecusta recently received a demand from
DEM that Ecusta. monitor fish tissue for dioxin. By a letter dated March 3,
1989, Ecusta agreed to perform that work at a cost in excess of $35,000. DEM's
proposal to modify the permit prior to receipt of the results of that fish
monitoring ie, at a minimum, disturbing.
As of the titae that DEM demanded that Ecusta monitor fish in the French Broad
River, DEM evidently was uncertain whether the river contained dioxin in con-
centrations that posed a threat, even when bioaccumulated in fish. Ecusta's
fish monitoring was designed to address that issue, Only if that monitoring
discovers dioxin at levels of concern in the French Broad River would it be
appropriate to attempt to identify the source of that dioxin (of which there
may be many) and to develop a control plan for any discovered source. DEM's
proposal to modify the permit assumes (i) that the fish monitoring presently
underway will find dioxin at levels of concern and (ii) that Ecusta is the
principal source of that dioxin. Neither of these assumptions are justified
in light of presently available information and DEM's demand for fish monitor-
ing. The proposed modifications should be tabled and reconsidered only after
all parties have had an opportunity to assimilate the results of the dioxin
monitoring already demanded by DEM.
3. The Proposed Dioxin Monitoring Program Is Inappropriate
For the_ Ecusta Discharge_
a. Ecusta Is Not a Bleached Kraft Pula Mill
The April 24th letter was a form letter sent to all bleached Kraft paper mills
and all other paper mills using chlorine for their bleaching process. It is
evident, however, that the proposed dioxin monitoring requirements were developed
expressly for a bleached Kraft paper mill; they are inappropriate for Ecusta's
mill. The Ecusta mill uses flax furnish rather than wood furnish in a modified
Kraft pulping operation; that is, the Ecusta mill uses flax and not wood as its
principal source of fiber. Flax furnish contains only 65% as much lignin by
volume as does wood furnish. Consequently, chlorine used in bleaching,stagee
has lees lignin with which it may inadvertently react to form chlorinated
hydrocarbons. Accordingly, the rate of production of chlorinated hydrocarbons
in a flax furnish mill will be lower per unit of chlorine than in a bleached
Kraft mill. If the Ecusta mill generates dioxins among those hydrocarbons,
and production of these molecules in the mill is by no means demonstrated, the
race of dioxin generation would be lower in Ecusta's flax furnish mill than in
a comparable wood furnish mill.
Moreover, the Ecusta mill uses an extremely small volume of pulp -- the material
that must be bleached -- for the volume of the mill's discharge. The mill
presently discharges approximately 25 million gallons of water per day to the
French Broad River, but operates at a pulp capacity of lees than 60 tone per
day. In light of the relatively small volume of pulp and, therefore, bleach
used at this mill, one would not expect the mill to discharge dioxin at the
rate some have asserted that bleached Kraft pulp paper mills discharge.

Page 4
b. The Proposed Monitoring Frequency Is Too High
Ecuata doesnot expect to detect dioxin or furans in its discharge. Moreover,
Ecuata'a process does not vary substantially over time; the mill produces the
same products.in the same ways at similar rates. Therefore, even if the permit
could be properly modified to require monitoring, the monitoring of influent to
the wastewater treatment facility, sludge, landfill leachate, and final effluent
should not be monthly or quarterly.. That frequency imposes enormous expense to
no benefit. Indeed, the proposed modification itself recognizes the extended
time necessary to analyze samples for dioxins and furans. There is no purpose
to monthly monitoring when the data will be three months old when they are
reported.
For these reasons,' if DEM could properly modify the permit to require dioxin
monitoring, DEM should only require annual monitoring. In the event that the
first two rounds of monitoring detect no dioxins or furans in a particular
medium, the monitoring requirement for that medium should be dropped.
e. DEM Cannot Properly Require Monitoring For Isomers
Other Than 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibento-p-dioxin
The proposed modification would require Ecusta to analyze -samples for all isomers
of dioxin and furan. However, only one isomer, 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo«p-dioxin
("2,3,7,8 TCDD"), is a toxic water pollutant listed by EPA in its regulations or
as a ''chemical substance requiring special attention" in the North Carolina Regu-
lations. Ecusta is aware of no legal authority and DEM cites none for modifying
a permit to require monitoring of other isomers of dioxin or furan.
4. The Proposed Dioxin Control Plan Is Unauthorized,
Premature, and Inappropriate
DEM has proposed to require Ecuata to develop a dioxin control plan within 120
days of the effective date of the permit modification and to include in that plan
an implementation schedule, The implementation schedule is to become an enforce-
able part of the permit, upon approval. This appears to be a backhanded method
of requiring Ecuata to implement the dioxin control plan upon its approval.
For the reasons stated above, no "good cause" exists for imposing dioxin control
requirements on Ecueta's permitted discharge. EPA has not issued effluent limita-
tions guidelines or toxic effluent standards for dioxin. The monitoring demanded
by DEM earlier this year has not -been completed, so no one knows that dioxin
presents a problem in the receiving stream. Therefore, no authority exists for
the proposed dioxin control plan requirement. Further, because EPA has not issued
regulations governing dioxin discharges, the proposed requirement of a dioxin
control plan would violate the Hardison Amendment, Section 143-215(c) of the
General Statutes, by imposing a.limitation on Ecusta's.discharge more stringent
than that called for under the Federal Regulations.
Moreover, even assuming that the data presently available could justify some action
with respect to dioxin, surely the very terms of the proposed modification.suggest
that Ecusta should not be required to develop a dioxin control plan within 120 days.
The proposed modification calls for dioxin monitoring. Only if that dioxin monitor-
ing revealed the presence of dioxin in concentrations of concern in any medium would
a control plan be justified and only if one knew where dioxin was presently to be
found could one develop a plan to control it. Therefore, the dioxin control plan
requirement must be deferred, at a minimum.

Page 5
.5. The Dioxiniteopener In Improper
Ae mentioned above, the North Carolina regulations govern modifications to NPDES
permits in this State. Modifications must be for "good cause". Changes in law
or facts which do not rise to the level of "good cause" do not justify modification
of a permit during its term; instead, DEM may use them to change the terms of the
permit upon its reiosuance after its expiration.
DEM proposes to modify the permit now to allow future modifications on grounds
different than those established in either the regulations or Sections II.A.4 and
.5 of the permit. That sort of modification is not authorized by the regulations
or the permit. Any modification must meet the "good cause" standard of the rules.
Whether a change in circumstances justifies a modification during the term of a
permit can only be determined after the nature of the change in circumstances
becomes known. DEM may not circumvent the important procedural protections of
the regulations by modifying.the permit to include the dioxin reopener.
6. The Commend Period on the Proposed Modification
Should'Se Extended
These comments have addressed a number of issues, but Ecusta has been unable to
comment on the proposed modification in light of data soon to be available regard-
ing.actual dioxin conditions in the French Broad River. As mentioned above, DEM
has demanded that Ecusta sample fish in the river for dioxin. Certainly, common
sense demands that Ecusta have an opportunity to reflect the implications of the
fish monitoring results in supplemental comments on the proposed modification.
In order to do so, Ecusta requires an additional 30 days from the time it submits
its report on the fish monitoring to comment on the proposed modification.
7. The Intervening Interim Inclusion of Ecusta's Mill On a List of
Facilities Pursuant toSection 304(1) of the Clean Water Act is
Not Relevant to the Proposed Modification as Drafted _
As the result of notice that Ecusta received from Region IV of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency on June 19th, our meeting of June 22nd, and press
reports, Ecusta is. of course, aware that EPA partially disapproved the Statere
submissions under Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act. In particular, Ecusta
is aware that EPA asserted authority to place the French Broad River below Ecusta's
discharge and the Ecusta mill on the pertinent lists. These decisions, we under-
stand, are interim; EPA will accept comments until October 4, 1989 on its approvals
and disapprovala.
Ecusta is advised by its counsel that no legal or factual grounds exist for the
inclusion of either the French Broad River or the Ecusta mill on a Section 304(1)
list. Ecusta is also informed by its counsel that the procedure used by EPA to
coerce inclusion of stream segments below paper mills on the Section 304(1) "short
list" is not authorized by either the statute or EPA's own regulations. DEM's
acquiescence in EPA's disapproval does not cure the procedural defects.
Nevertheleae, the inclusion of the river and the mill on Section 304(1) lista on
an interim basis can have no bearing on the proposed modification to the permit
that Ecusta received in April. These actions occurred after DEM proposed the
modification, and DEM's letter does not advert to them. Because Ecusta ie
entitled to sixty days to consider and to comment upon a proposed modification
to the permit, grounds not stated in the proposed modification which arise after
the modification is proposed cannot justify that modification.

•
1
8. Conclusion
In order to modify a permit during its term, DEM requires "good cause". No "good
cause" exiata to support the proposed modification. DEM has no data suggesting
that the French Broad River contains dioxin at any level, let alone concentrations
of concern. Even if dioxins were to be discovered in the river, the sources of
that dioxin are by no means clear. Unidentified "guidance" issued by EPA and a
draft permit developed for a paper mill of a different type do not in logic or
in law justify a modification of the permit.
Even if DEM were to determine to continue to consider the proposed modification,
DEM must extend the comment period to accommodate additional comments based upon
the results of the dioxin monitoring in fish that DEM has itself demanded. There-
fore, if DEM does not withdraw the proposed modification, as it should, DEM should
accept additional comments until 30 days following submission of the fish monitoring
results and DEM should not act on the Codification until receipt of those comments.
If it would be appropriate and helpful, Ecusta would be more than willing to meet
with you regarding the proposed modification.
/bh
cc: C. N. Carter - Spring Grove
D. W. Monk - Pisgah Forest
Sincerely,
ECUSTA DIVISION
P. GLATFELTER COMPANY
Guseman, Director
Environmental Affairs