NC0000272_NOV-2022-SS-007 International Paper response_20220512

Thomas C. Richardson 6400 Poplar Avenue
Remediation Project Manager Memphis, TN 38197
Environment, Health, & Safety
T 901 419 3878
F 901 214 9551
[e-mail]

VIA E-MAIL

May 12, 2022

Mr. G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Reginal Operations
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778

RE: Response to Notice of Violation and Recommendation for Enforcement
NOV-2022-SS-0007 (Incident No.: 202200160)
Stream Standard Violation - Removal of Best Usage
Stream Standard Violation - Floating solids, settleable solids or sludge deposits
Stream Standard Violation - Oil, deleterious substances or colored or other wastes
PactivEvergreen, LLC– Canton Mill (175 Main Street)
Haywood County, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Davidson:

This letter is in response to your notice of violation (“NOV”) letter dated April 11, 2022 (“Letter”), received
by International Paper (“IP”) on April 12, 2022. The Letter states that on January 28, 2022, “PactivEvergreen
reported the presence of material reported as black liquor visibly present in the streambed substrate of the
Pigeon River in the area of a documented groundwater seep.” The Letter further states that, based on your
site inspection and a North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NCDEQ”) file review, three
stream standard violations were identified: (1) Removal of Best Usage, (2) Floating solids, settleable solids
or sludge deposits, and (3) Oil, deleterious substances or colored or other wastes. The Letter requires a
response from IP within 30 days.

IP also acknowledges receipt of a Notice of Regulatory Requirements for Contaminant Assessment and
Cleanup letter dated April 22, 2022, from the Division of Waste Management (DWM) Inactive Hazardous
Sites Branch (“IHSB”). A written response to that letter will be submitted to the IHSB.

IP is the successor by merger to Champion International Corporation (“Champion”), which on May 14, 1999,
sold assets associated with the Canton Mill to Blue Ridge Paper Products (“Blue Ridge”). PactivEvergreen
(which according to your Letter reported the presence of the “black liquor”) is the successor to Blue Ridge.

FOLLOWING THE 1999 TRANSACTION, CHAMPION PERFORMED SEEP CONTROL ACTIVITIES AT
THE CANTON MILL PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH PACTIVEVERGREEN’S PREDECESSOR,
BLUE RIDGE, WHICH RELEASED CHAMPION FROM ANY FURTHER LIABILITY TO BLUE RIDGE TO
CONTROL ANY SOURCES OF THE SEEP.

After Champion’s sale of the Canton Mill to Blue Ridge and in response to a September 1, 1994 notice of
violation (“NOV”) issued by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDNR) related to a seep of dark colored liquid to the Pigeon River, Champion on November 1, 2000,
entered into a seep control agreement with Blue Ridge (the “Seep Agreement”). Under the Seep
Mr. G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
May 12, 2022
Page 2

Agreement, Champion implemented certain work items1 identified by Blue Ridge to “further control possible
sources of release”. Champion implemented these work items and issued a Confirmation of Completion
Letter dated July 1, 2002, to Blue Ridge, stating that the work was completed in November 2001. This July
1, 2002 letter included certification of completion sheets signed by the contractor, IP, and Blue Ridge
confirming that the source control work requested by Blue Ridge had been completed.

The Seep Agreement expressly provided that “[i]n exchange for Champion's completing the Work, Blue
Ridge agrees to release Champion from any and all liability or expense for control of sources of the seep
originating from the pulp mill portion of the Canton Mill. Blue Ridge agrees it will make no claim against
Champion for any liability or expense for control of sources of the seep from any source in the pulp
mill portion of the Canton Mill.” Id. at 2 (Paragraph 2) (emphasis added).

Despite its predecessor’s acknowledgement that Champion had satisfied its obligations under the Seep
Agreement, PactivEvergreen requested that the NCDEQ pursue the above-referenced NOV against IP. As
discussed below, PactivEvergreen’s actions – and its attempt to shift any responsibility for current seep
conditions to IP, notwithstanding the work completed under the Seep Agreement -- comes after
PactivEvergreen and its predecessors have operated the Canton Mill over the last 20 years.

PACTIVEVERGREEN’S OPERATIONS OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS COMPELS ITS ADDITION TO THE
NOTICE OF VIOLATION

It has been over 20 years since Champion completed the source control work for the seep. Since then, IP
is not aware of any releases to the River associated with the Canton Mill that have been reported. Yet,
when it reported the event on January 28, 2022 PactivEvergreen’s immediate (and seemingly reflexive)
response was to reach back more than two decades to place responsibility solely on IP.

IP of course does not have direct knowledge regarding the operations of the Canton Mill since it was sold
by Champion, but what it does know about the nature of PactivEvergreen’s operations suggest that those
operations – and not IP - could be responsible for the 2022 event. In this regard, IP has conducted
semiannual groundwater monitoring at the Mill since 2007. Review of that monitoring data shows instances
of potential mill releases to the environment in the area upgradient of the seep since IP completed the
source control work. These observations include:

 A significant increase in pH, color, and total dissolved solids occurred in groundwater from
upgradient monitoring well PZ-7 in the February 2007 monitoring event when compared to the
1995, 1997, 2002, and 2005 results. The color at this monitoring well location remains the highest
on site at 35,000 15 Plat-Cob Units in February 2022.

 Monitoring well PZ-14 was last sampled in August 2020. A strong odor of gasoline was discovered
in the well during the February 2021 monitoring event. It is IP’s understanding that PactivEvergreen
removed an unknown volume of free-product from this well until it abandoned the well and installed
a replacement well PZ-14R located two feet east of the original well. The replacement well also
exhibited a strong gasoline odor and, therefore, was not sampled during the February 2022
monitoring event.

 Oil was first detected in monitoring well PZ-16 in 2013. Apparently, there was a line break for a
fuel line servicing the No. 6 fuel oil tanks near PZ-16 in 2013. From public records, it appears that
PactivEvergreen notified NCDNR in February 2013 of this oily substance within PZ-16. With the
increased presence of oil, IP has not sampled this well since January 2018. IP is not aware whether
PactivEvergreen has conducted any oil recovery activities at this well.

1 The work included sump and trench drain rehabilitation and sump shelters
Mr. G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
May 12, 2022
Page 3

Given the above and the lack of publicly-available information concerning PactivEvergreen environmental
activities and housekeeping at the Canton Mill, IP requests that NCDEQ add PactivEvergreen as a party to
the NCDEQ Letter so that it can participate and address its contribution to the event that is the basis for the
NOV.

IP’S RESPONSE TO THE VIOLATIONS RELATING TO STREAM IMPACTS AND DISCHARGES

Below is IP’s response with respect to the three individual violations identified in the Letter and the grounds
on which IP disputes that it has any responsibility to abate the alleged violations. IP further disputes that
any “[e]nvironmental damage and/or failure to secure proper authorizations have been documented on the
subject tract as stated above” for which IP has any responsibility.

Violation 1: Removal of Best Usage; 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (2) - 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.

IP Response: IP disputes this violation. There is no information that any of the material observed
was material that in fact impacted the “best uses” of the water. Further investigation of the seep
and its chemical makeup is needed to evaluate this potential violation to determine if and how one
or more best uses of the water may have been impacted.

Violation 2: Stream Standard Violation – Floating solids, settleable solids or sludge deposits: 15A NCAC
02B .0211 (8) – only such amounts attributable to sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes as shall not
make the water unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic life and wildlife or impairs the waters for any designated
uses.

IP Response: IP disputes this violation. To IP’s knowledge, the materials referenced in alleged
violation 2 (floating solids, settleable solids, or sludge deposits) are not believed to be present in
the seeps. These materials have not been observed in the past. Additionally, if the material in the
seep is as alleged “black liquor,” the referenced materials are not typical materials associated with
black liquor, particularly if the migration pathway is from the Mill through groundwater to the river.
On that basis, IP cannot be responsible for this violation and IP requests that NCDEQ withdraw it
as to IP.

Violation 3: Stream Standard Violation – Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 (12) – 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. For the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils,
deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes shall include substances that cause a film or sheen
upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines, as described in 40 CFR 1110.3(a)-
(b), incorporated by reference including subsequent amendments and editions.

IP Response: IP disputes this violation. To IP’s knowledge, the material from the seep – if it is
“black liquor” - cannot and does not “cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of
the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface
of the water or upon adjoining shorelines” as defined as 40 CFR 110.3(a)-(b) (incorporating 15A
NCAC 02B .0211 (12) by reference). That is because black liquor is not a separate phase liquid
that floats on the water. Instead, what was observed appears to be a discoloration of the water
that is possibly from some other source or activity associated with the Canton Mill. Therefore, IP
may not be responsible for this violation and IP requests that NCDEQ withdraw it as to only IP.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE LETTER

Below is IP’s response to Comment Nos. 1 to 3 identified in the Letter. IP’s response to these comments
describe a surface water sampling plan (a “SWSP”) it proposes be prepared and submitted together with
PactivEvergreen in response to Comment No. 1, and submissions it is making with this letter in response
to Comment No. 3. In responding to the comments, IP has taken into account the direction in the Letter
Mr. G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
May 12, 2022
Page 4

that “[a]ny sampling plans developed in response to this NOV or other requirement from DWM may be
combined for efficiency, to reduce duplicative efforts and associated costs.”

As addressed above, PactivEvergreen should be named in and required to address the NOV, including
participating in the development of the SWSP and any sediment sampling plan that may be required. As
an initial step, and prior to preparing and submitting a SWSP, IP proposes a site walk and reconnaissance
take place with NCDEQ, PactivEvergreen, and IP representatives in attendance. The purpose of this site
walk would be to jointly observe river conditions to facilitate the development of a SWSP.

Comment 1: A surface water sampling plan: An approved surface water sampling shall meet the
following requirements:

a. Determine the constituents of concern which will necessitate sampling and
broad spectrum analyses to include all potential constituents (e.g., Alkalinity, Al,
As, B, Ba, Cl, Co, Color, COD, Cr, Fe, Mn, Na, NH3, Ni, Orthophosphate, Pb,
Phenol, Se, SO4, TKN, VOA, SVOA, Zn, etc.). A complete list of all constituents
of concern will be approved by the Division in collaboration with the Division of
Waste Management’s Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch, the lead agency for the
subject release);
IP Response: This element of the SWSP requires PactivEvergreen’s participation. Constituents to be
tested requires an understanding of the Canton Mill’s current operations.
b. Monitoring in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0211 to accurately characterize
total and dissolved phase metals;
IP Response: IP proposes that for purposes of the SWSP, total and filtered metals samples be prepared
and analyzed in accordance with the referenced regulation in cooperation with
PactivEvergreen. As described in IP’s response to Comment 1.a, a list of the
recommended analyses will be presented in the SWSP along with supporting rationale.
c. Monitoring for the purposes of establishing the mass contaminant loading or
flux through groundwater to the Pigeon River;
IP Response: The October 31, 2007 Voluntary Cleanup Checklist included the following statement:
“Calculations of the estimated dilution afforded by the Pigeon River on the estimated
seepage discharge predicted no reasonable potential to cause or contribute to instream
impacts of water quality criteria in the river.”
Nonetheless, should the surface water analytical results collected under the SWSP indicate
that there is an unacceptable risk to the river, IP is prepared to calculate the groundwater
flux and associated mass loading to the Pigeon River in the vicinity of the discharge seeps.
This calculation would rely on already existing data (hydraulic conductivities, groundwater
gradients and quality) and published river flows.
d. Any approved sampling plan must ensure full characterization and monitoring
of the impact to surface waters in various seasons, groundwater flow conditions,
river stage, etc. Sampling may include surface water, groundwater, river
substrate (e.g., via seepage meter), and seeps;
IP Response: IP will propose in the SWSP to collect surface water samples to coincide with the current
groundwater monitoring program (February and August). The groundwater data collected
since 2007 has shown that variability in groundwater flow velocity has been negligible.
However, sampling in February and August will provide the seasonal information requested
in this comment.
e. A workplan to survey of the east bank of the Pigeon River to identify all seepage
areas; and,
Mr. G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
May 12, 2022
Page 5

IP Response: IP proposes that it conduct a survey of the east riverbank prior to the preparation of the
SWSP together with PactivEvergreen. This survey will help coordinate work plan
development.
f. A plan for a toxicity study to evaluate any impact to human health and aquatic
life. The first phase of the study shall evaluate the toxicological impact at the
groundwater discharge location(s). A second phase will be required to
determine if any cumulative impact exists downstream of the groundwater
discharge area after confluence with the NPDES discharge.

IP Response: IP proposes to conduct a desk top evaluation of potential risks to human health and aquatic
life. This desk top evaluation will be described in the SWSP, and will include comparison
of surface water results to NCDEQ, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and
consensus screening levels to evaluate if there are potential risks to human health or
aquatic life. If this desk top evaluation shows potential risks, IP will discuss with NCDEQ
next steps in evaluating potential risks.

Comment 2: A sediment sampling plan: The DWR will require the evaluation of a sediment
sampling plan to quantify any impacts to streambed substrate from the discharge of
impacted groundwater; and,

IP Response: As described in IP’s response to Violation 3: Stream Standard Violation, if the material in
the seep is black liquor, it would not be a separate phase liquid that floats on the water or
that would coat sediment grains. Instead, it is a discoloration of the water. Therefore, until
it is determined that the material is black liquor, IP is not prepared to include a sediment
sampling plan. If after the initial site survey or the completion of the toxicity study based
on surface water data described in the above response to Comment No. 1, it appears that
sediments may be impacted, IP would then address whether a sediment sampling plan
should be prepared.

Comment 3: A historical summary of any efforts, pilot or otherwise, to contain or treat the
impacted groundwater.

IP Response: The historical summary of efforts to contain the impacted groundwater is provided in the
attached Response to Notice of Regulatory Requirements letter dated May 23, 2008 (see
attachment). IP has not conducted efforts to contain or treat groundwater since that time.
IP is not aware of any activities to address groundwater conducted by PactivEvergreen,
other than the removal of free-product from monitoring well PZ-14 described above.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,

Tom Richardson
Mr. G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
May 12, 2022
Page 6

cc: Steve Ginski, IP
John Cermak, Cermak & Inglin
Mark Hartford, AECOM
Collin Day, NC DWM IHSB

Attachment

Historical Summary of Efforts to Contain the Impacted Groundwater
(Response to Notice of Regulatory Requirements Letter
dated May 23, 2008)