NC0000175_Draft Hearing Report_20200410

April 10, 2020
Memorandum
TO: Danny Smith, Director
Division of Water Resources
FROM: Jon RR NOTAPPROVED
State Revolving Fund Section Chief
re-]
SUBJECT: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations The Quartz Corp USA and
Sibelco North America,NPDES Wastewater Permit Numbers NC0000175,
NC0000353,NC0000361,NC0000400,NC0084620,NC0085839, Mitchell and
Avery Counties.
On May 2, 2019, I served as Hearing Officer for a public hearing at the Mitchell County Senior
Center in Bakersville,North Carolina. The purpose of the hearing was to gather public comments
regarding the Division's intent to renew the NPDES permits for The Quartz Corp's and Sibelco's
mineral ore processing facilities.
Public notice of the draft permits (Attachment G)was originally published in The Asheville
Citizen Times on October 24, 2018 and posted on the DWR website. In response to comments
regarding lack of appropriate notification by the Division,the permits were noticed again on
January 8 & 9, 2019 in The Asheville Citizen Times, The Mitchell News Journal, and The Avery
Journal. In response to many comments received during the second notice period, a public
hearing was held. Public notice of the hearing was published in The Asheville Citizen Times, The
Mitchell News Journal, and The Avery Journal on April 3, 2019. The hearing was then held at
6:00 PM at the location mentioned above, and oral and written comments were received. The
comment period ended on May 3, 2019.
I have considered all comments received and worked with Division staff to identify a course of
action. This report presents my findings and recommendations for the subject NPDES
wastewater permits. Revised copies of the permits and factsheets are provided as Attachments A
and B.
The report has been prepared using the following outline:
I. Background
11. Public Hearing
I11. Comments Received/Response to Comments
IV. Summary and Discussion
V. Recommended Actions
VI. Attachments

I. Background
Facilities and Permits: The Quartz Corp USA owns and operates NC0000353-The Feldspar
Corporation and NC0000400- KT Feldspar facilities. Sibelco NA owns and operates
NC0000175-Quartz Operation,NC0000361-Schoolhouse,NC0084620-Crystal, and
NC0085839-Red Hill facilities. These plants discharge treated industrial wastewater from
mineral ore processing to the North Toe River in the French Broad River Basin. The North Toe
River is classified C, Trout for all the facilities for the protection of general freshwater
parameters with additional requirements for the protection and propagation of trout, and
classified B as well at the Red Hill facility which provides additional standards for primary
recreation beyond the class C standards.
The facility's permitted discharges are currently subject to, among other parameters, limits for
total suspended solids (TSS) and fluoride as shown in Table 1. They are all subject to the same
pH limit and monitoring requirements for mining parameters found in 15A NCAC 02B .0508.
The facilities have complied with these permit requirements with a few minor exceedances,
except The Quartz Corp Feldspar Corporation Facility (NC0000353)which experienced two
process control failures in 2017 and 2018 causing acid spills which contributed to fish kills in the
river resulting in a civil penalty assessment of more than $14,000.
Table 1. Current Flow, Fluoride, and TSS Limitations.
Permit# Facility Flow, TSS(lbs/day) Fluoride
MGD lbs/da
NC0000361 Sibelco-Schoolhouse 2.16 450 MA 109 MA
721 DM 218 DM
NC0000353 Quartz-Feldspar Corp 3.5 1568 MA 174 MA
3137 DM 348 DM
NC0084620 Sibelco-Crystal 0.533 133 MA 50 MA
266 DM 100 DM
NC0000400 Quartz-K-T Feldspar 1.73 1240 MA 132 MA
2480 DM 264 DM
NC0000175 Sibelco-Quartz Op. 3.6 1320 MA 109 MA
2640 DM 218 DM
NC0085839 Sibelco- Red Hill 2 417 MA 384 WA
834 DM 768 DM
MA-Monthly Average, DM-Daily Maximum
All of the facilities except Red Hill share a fluoride wasteload allocation(WLA)because of the
use of hydrofluoric acid in the mineral extraction process. The Red Hill facility was exempted

from the WLA as it it located below the confluence with the South Toe River resulting in a 7Q10
flow twice that as found near the other five facilities. The WLA was last determined in 1995 with
the addition of the Crystal facility as a discharger to this segment of the river. Permit limits for
fluoride and TSS have remain unchanged since 1995. The North Toe River was added to the
303(d) list for impaired waters in the last decade for exceeding the turbidity standard. TSS
loading was then frozen for any future expansion considerations at the facilities. The river has
subsequently been delisted from the 303(d) as of 2018.
The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)performed a joint inspection with the Division of
Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR) and DWR staff at several of these facilities in
2015. As a result of these inspections, EPA required DEMLR to monitor for additional pollutants
in its NCG02 stormwater general permit for these mining facilities. Based on the 2015 EPA
inspection data, and DEMLR stormwater data(see Section IV for detailed discussion), several
additional potential pollutants of concern were identified for this permit renewal period.
Proposed Permit Changes: In October 2018, the Division published notice of its intent to renew
the permits with the following major changes from prior permits:
• pH limits would be 6-9 Standard Units (SU) instead of 6-10 SU previously permitted to
comply with North Carolina water quality standards (WQS).
• Monitoring for total aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were added based on 2015
EPA and DEMLR data.
• Effluent and upstream hardness monitoring were added because of the 2016 adoption of
hardness-dependent metal standards in NPDES permits.
• Additional instream turbidity monitoring is required when effluent turbidity exceeded the
10 NTU trout standard.
These new limitations and conditions were designed to identify the potential risk of metals found
in stormwater sampling events, and to reduce instream turbidity with increased monitoring based
on treatment performance.
II. Public Hearing
Approximately 93 people attended the public hearing, including members of the general public;
several Town and County employees and officials, ten members of DWR's central and regional
offices along with DEQ's Public Information Office, and the hearing officer. The sign-in sheet
for non-speakers is attached as Attachment F. The hearing was also covered by ABC News 13
WLOS and their broadcast story coverage can be found at: https://wlos.com/news/local/some-
residents-call-for-end-to-mine-dumps-in-north-toe-river
Twenty individuals spoke at the hearing. The speakers' sign-in sheet is included in Attachment
F. Written comments are in Attachment C. Several technical written comments can also be found

at the Division's Laserfiche e-document management website under the permit numbers.
https:Hedocs.deq.nc.gov
As hearing officer, I provided opening and closing comments. David Hill provided an overview
of DWR's draft NPDES permits (Attachment E), and comments were then heard.
III. Comments Received/Response to Comments
Division staff have reviewed all comments received. This section summarizes the key comments
and responses to those comments. (Comment summaries in bold, additional comments if
necessary).
Commenter: Southern Environmental Law Center(SELL), French Broad Riverkeeper, Mountain
True, and Defenders of Wildlife initial comments.
Technology Based Effluent Limitations (TBEL)-DWR must develop TBELs for fluoride,
chloride, and TSS.
Comments:
• Fluoride -DWR only imposed water quality based limits (WQBEL) for fluoride. EPA
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) Development document that DWR references
states fluoride concentrations can achieve < 1 Omg/L through segregation of the fluoride
wastestream. References 2010 EPA document and likens the treatment process to that at
phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing facilities which achieve fluoride concentrations<
15mg/L. Current technologies can sometimes achieve 2 mg/L.
• Chlorides - Chemical precipitation has improved at feldspar processing facilities using
calcium chloride. The two newest facilities discharge high levels of chloride 10-25 times
the standard. Permits only require monitoring with no limits which is in error.
• TSS - DWR does cite TBEL in limit development,but DWR must reassess based on
improvements in last forty years. DWR used the 1975 development document and not the
final 1979 document. Technologies cited in the document were achieving concentrations
less than those currently being discharged. EPA's 1979 review determined facilities were
achieving 21-45 mg/L TSS.
• DWR must develop TBELs in accordance with the CWA and State rules.
Staff Response: Fluoride - The development document cited, for both 1975 and 1979, developed
ELGs in mass-based production units. As such, applying summaries of the findings at the time in
concentration units gives an incomplete picture of the treatment levels technically feasible. The
production based limits in the two documents are the same. For fluoride, applying the draft ELG
fluoride limits to current production levels results in limits that are higher than the currently
permitted WQBELs. Using the design flow and permitted limits,permitted concentrations of

fluoride for the facilities using the applicable flotation processes results in discharge levels of
3.6-9.1 mg/L, a range below the 10mg/L cited above.
Chlorides and TSS - The Division will require more information to develop TBELs for these
parameters for the next permit cycle. Since the facilities are not subject to ELGs which would
standardize the TBEL calculation process, the facilities have reported their production in
different units, ore processed versus product produced. This does not allow for a like-to-like
comparison of treatment in production based units. The revised permit now requires that
production be reported in tons of ore processed for all facilities. Another complicating factor
with the development of a chloride TBEL is the relationship between fluoride removal using
calcium chloride and chloride levels in the wastestream. It is assumed higher levels of calcium
chloride could remove more fluoride (limiting factors including reaction rates and solubility)but
cause more chloride to be discharged. Finally, Sibelco's Red Hill and Crystal facilities use a
process that is not be comparable to the flotation processes used at the other facilities and would
need to be evaluated under a separate metric.
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBEL)-DWR can only apply WQBELs after
making sure minimum treatment levels achieved through TBELs fail to achieve water
quality standards.
Comments:
• DWR's public notice lists the receiving stream as water quality limited for fluoride and
TSS.
• Freezing TSS loads is insufficient and more strict limits need to be developed to reduce
turbidity.
• DWR did not perform a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) for fluoride and the current
WLA is insufficient resulting in an unapproved mixing zone.
• The WLA does not account for additional fluoride loading in the watershed.
• There are no TBELs for chlorides and DWR failed to account for background
concentrations in conducting the RPA for chlorides.
• DWR is not protecting for narrative criteria for deleterious substances, colored, or other
waste. The discharges are injurious to recreation and aquatic life. Photos submitted
showing excessively turbid water that was "almost certainly attributable to mining-related
waste in the river". The discharge has a caustic chemical odor and must be abated. The
river was closed in 2018 from a chemical spill impairing recreational use. The permits do
not address the narrative water quality standard.
• pH- Supports revising pH limits to comply with the water quality standard, but that
should not result in additional chemical treatment.
Staff Response: The public notice incorrectly stated that the river was water quality limited for
TSS, as there is no surface water standard for TSS. It should have noted it was water quality

limited for turbidity because at the time of the public notice the river segment was listed as
impaired for turbidity on the 2016 303(d) list. EPA approved the 2018 303(d) list on May 22,
2019 in which this segment of the North Toe was delisted for turbidity. DWR will proceed with
developing a TBEL in the next permit cycle as noted in the above section. DWR will also be
implementing additional best management practices (BMP) conditions involving the settling
ponds during this permit cycle to reduce TSS and turbidity loading. Based on comments
received, staff recommend that turbidity monitoring frequency be increased to twice weekly.
WLA- Even applying the suggested 10 mg/L fluoride concentration provided above, this
segment of the river would remain water quality limited for fluoride on a mass-loading basis.
The WLA accounts for the background contribution each discharger would contribute to the
background concentration in the RPA with each discharge well below the allowable discharge
concentration at the 7Q10 flow if they had full allocation. The commenter is correct that the
WLA does not account for additional fluoride loading from other sources. Following the
Hearing, DWR is working with DEMLR's stormwater and mining programs to address some of
these issues. DEMLR collated data and performed additional inspections in July 2019, working
with the facilities to make site improvements and install new stomwter BMPs. They are currently
reviewing options for their NCG02 mining stormwater permit. A summary of DEMLR actions
taken through October 2019 can be found in Appendix E. DWR continues to work with DEMLR
throughout this process.
The Division is revising the water quality WLA in light of DEMLR's recent data compilation.
Since the mass-loading of pollutants cannot be determined with the existing data, the fluoride
and TSS allocations will be reduced by 20% taking inspiration from the TMDL approach. The
20%will be an estimated account of non-point source loading, a safety margin, and a reserve
factor. A special condition will also be added to the permits requiring modeling of the mass-
loading of fluoride, chloride, and TSS to the North Toe to further refine the WLA. It should be
noted that assessment data from the ambient network has not triggered 303(d) listing for fluoride
in this segment.
DWR will be looking at the feasibility of developing TBELs for chlorides as noted above, and
concurs on the need to revise the RPA for chlorides accounting for additional loading from the
existing discharges.
Narrative-The increased monitoring frequency for turbidity will help protect the narrative
standard and identify specific discharges that may be out of compliance. The spills and river
closures were a result of process errors and do not indicate a systemic violation of the narrative
standard. The facility was issued NOVs and assessed civil penalties for the incidents.
pH-DWR will monitor and evaluate additional effluent discharge concentrations resulting from
compliance with the pH standard.
Monitoring and reporting

Comments:
• The Red Hill facility's fluoride limit should be expressed as a monthly average instead of
a weekly average.
• Monitoring for aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc should be increased to monthly
instead of quarterly for all facilities.
Staff Response: DWR concurs that the Red Hill facility's fluoride limit should be expressed as a
monthly average in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(d) and the permit will be amended. The
Division also concurs that the metals monitoring frequency should be increased to monthly.
Waste Disposal/Removed Substances- Tailings are residuals.
Comments:
• Pollutants in stormwater from residuals.
• NC General Statutes and NPDES standards permit conditions requires sludge removed to
prevent pollutants from entering waters of the State or effect human health or the
environment.
Response: As noted previously, DWR is working with DEMLR to improve stormwater runoff at
the facilities and additional stream monitoring is being added to the permits throughout the
watershed to determine the extent of the additional loading.
Groundwater Monitoring-Draft permits do not indicate if some treatment units are
unlined.
Comments:
• NPDES Standard Conditions require groundwater monitoring to determine compliance
with groundwater standards
• Groundwater sampling should be required around any unlined treatment basins
Staff Response: An additional special condition is added directing the facilities to identify all
unlined process wastewater treatment units and existing monitoring wells. ARO will direct the
facilities to perform additional hydrogeological investigations if needed during the permit cycle.
DEQ Must Take Steps to Protect Federally Listed Appalachian Elktoe.
Comments:
• All six discharges are upstream of State and Federally listed Critical Habitat for the
Appalachian Elktoe mussel.
• The Nolichucky basin is one of seven known populations for the mussel and second
largest.

• The mussel is particularly sensitive to sedimentation.
• Issuing the permits without addressing TSS exceedances and turbidity impairment poses
further risk.
• DWR did not properly notify the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and has not
elicited comment from USFWS.
• The state is required to develop site-specific management strategies under 15A NCAC
02B .0110 such as Outstanding Resource Water Designation or special management
strategy under 15A NCAC 02B .0227.
Response: DWR did not notify the USFWS for the initial public notice comment period. DWR
did receive comments from USFWS during the expansion of the Red Hill facility two permit
cycles ago and addressed USFWS concerns at that time. USFWS did contact the permit writer
during the second public comment period and wished to know if and when a public hearing
would be held. USFWS was provided the time and location of the public hearing and expressed
interest in commenting. USFWS did not attend the public hearing nor submit written comment
during any of the time that the second public comment record was open. Permit limits and
monitoring have remained the same or become more stringent since USFWS' comments on the
Red Hill expansion. The site-specific management strategy requirements required under 15A
NCAC 02B .0110 constitute rule-making and are outside of the scope of NPDES permitting,
however, the revised permits limits and conditions should provide further protection for the
mussel.
Draft Permits Will Not Achieve Compliance With Water Quality Standards.
Comments:
• The CWA and NC administrative code prohibit permits that cannot reasonably ensure
compliance with water quality standards.
• The permit would violate WQS for turbidity, fluoride, and narrative recreation and
aesthetic standards.
• Recent non-compliance from several facilities, including fish kills is cause to re-evaluate
permit limits.
Staff Response: In consideration of the proposed changes to the permits discussed in this report,
DWR believes the permits will reasonably comply with WQS. Non-compliance issues are a
facility operation and maintenance issue, and do not necessarily indicate an issue with permit
limits and conditions in protecting WQS.
Commenter: Southern Environmental Law Center(SELC), French Broad Riverkeeper, Mountain
True, and Defenders of Wildlife supplementary comments entered after the public hearing_.
Stream classification

Comments:
• The Red Hill was incorrectly listed as discharging to class C water, the correct
designation is class B.
• Class B waters must meet additional criteria for primary recreation.
• As noted in previous comments, permits are silent on narrative criteria
Response: The permit and factsheet for the Red Hill facility will be amended to indicate the
correct classification of the stream.
Sibelco's Effluent Disclosure
Comments:
• Sibelco's applications are incomplete in quantifying which substances may be discharged
on Short Form C and only qualitatively describe what may be added to the process.
• Federal regulations and case-law require such disclosure.
• SELC has requested the information and not received it.
• Unclear why all six facilities are classified as minor dischargers.
Response: Designating an industrial facility as a major or minor discharger is done using EPA's
rating sheet to classify discharges. The facilities were re-evaluated in 2012 and determined to be
minor dischargers with EPA approval. The Division does believe a more comprehensive review
of the effluent for all facilities is needed. Special conditions requiring the analyses of compounds
found in Tables A-C of the EPA Application Form 2C within six months of the permit's
effective dates and the use of the form for application renewal are added to the permits.
Downstream Monitoring
Comments:
• The Altapass facility's (NC0000353)downstream monitoring location at 1.5 miles
downstream is insufficient to categorize instream impacts from the effluent
Staff Response: Employee safety is one factor a facility must consider when performing instream
sampling. DWR's Asheville Regional Office will work with the facility to determine if another
viable location can be found that does not compromise safety.
Monitoring Frequency- Provides additional justification for increased monitoring of new
metals monitoring in the draft permits.
Staff Response: The monitoring frequency will be increased to monthly as previously discussed.
Appalachian Elktoe -Reiterates what was previously said and notes Red Hill's discharge
overlaps the critical habitat.

Staff Response: Same as previously discussed.
Public Notice - DWR has failed to notify SELC and others about permitting actions as
required by administrative code, statute, federal regulations, and MOA with EPA.
Staff Response: DWR is aware of the issues and strives to fulfill its duties as required.
Commenter: Clean Water for North Carolina
Permit limits are too weak to protect people who may drink from the Toe River and fail to
protect aquatic life, recreational users from high turbidity, highly caustic hydrofluoric acid
spills, and toxic metals.
Staff Response: The facilities do not discharge to water supply classified waters and there are no
segments of the river within NC classified as water supply downstream of the discharges.
Turbidity is a human health criterion of concern. There are insufficient data to determine the
toxicity of any metals at this time. Permit limits regulate pH, violations of the pH standard
because of facility error are a compliance and enforcement issue.
WQS for hardness-dependent metals were approved by the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) in 2014 and EPA in 2016, standards, including required hardness,
should have been calculated sooner in the process.
Staff Response: The presence of metals in the discharge and in what quantities at this time are
unknown since these are new parameters which are only suspected of being present based on
stormwater monitoring data. As such, there is no data with which to conduct a reasonable
potential analysis.
(Comment in full)-Fluoride and total suspended solids have a daily limit which is
meaningless, though the mines' discharges are only regulated on the basis of a weekly
average and are only actually measured MONTHLY, rendering the daily limit essentially
meaningless. No attention is being paid to the cumulative impact of these discharges; if
more than one of these facilities discharged at the daily maximum, the consequences for
water quality and aquatic life would be devastating.
Staff Response: The Red Hill facility will have its weekly average limit changed to a monthly
average. Fluoride and TSS measurement frequency in the permit is one composite sample
weekly. The daily limit provides an additional check on the variation of the effluent that goes
into calculating the monthly average. EPA's draft ELG for the same parameters have daily
maximums that are double the monthly average like in these permits. Federal regulations also
require that permit limits be expressed as monthly averages and daily maximums.
Chloride levels instream have violated instream water quality standards and a discharge
limit for chloride must be provided with a monitoring frequency of daily.

Staff Response: DWR is not aware of any instream chloride exceedances. RPA has not indicated
potential for excursion but effluent levels are high enough to require quarterly monitoring for this
parameter in accordance with DWR RPA procedure. Since the Red Hill and Crystal facilities
discharge a majority of the chloride, monitoring frequency will be increased to monthly for those
facilities. DWR will revise its RPA for this parameter as noted previously and apply appropriate
limits and monitoring if necessary.
(Comment in full)- There must be specific standards and required sampling sufficient to
assure that "narrative standards" for protecting fishing, recreation, aquatic
life, and aesthetics are protected.Based on photos we have seen, the instream conditions
frequently violate the trout stream NC 10 NTU limit without any other sources
contributing. The permit must include a method for reliable and several times daily
sampling and measurement downstream of each of these mines,with stipulated penalties
for violations,with increasing violations for increasing opacity and/or frequency of
exceedances, sufficient to prevent ongoing occurrences.
Staff Response: The draft permits already have more stringent conditions from previous for
turbidity. Staff recommend that the sampling frequency be increased from weekly to twice
weekly.
DWR should not wait for the expiration of the Stormwater General Permit to require
application for specific facilities which are documented to be contributing pollutants.
Staff Response: DWR cannot require anyone to submit an application; it can only take permit
action on existing permitted facilities, or enforcement on unregulated discharges and instream
violations. As discussed earlier, DWR is already working closely with DEMLR to resolve issues
as quickly as possible.
Permit reopeners are appreciated, but take too long to implement. Stricter sampling and
analysis, and more frequent visual inspections of equipment should be required.
Staff Response: Additional BMPs will be added to the permit.
Commenter: Sibelco North America written comments in response to SELC's et al initial written
comments.
Comments: Response to SELC comments. See Attachment C.
Comments-Speakers at the Public Hearing
Speaker 1 Hartwell Carson, French Broad Riverkeeper-
Comments:

• The North Toe is an incredible resource not meeting its potential mostly because of the
mines.
• Pollution from the mines does not meet Clean Water Act requirements.
• Stormwater from mines is a contributing factor as well.
• Has witnessed high turbidity exceeding WQS many times while paddling the river, levels
at times exceed meter limits.
• Fluoride and chloride pollutants of concern as well, the mines can do better and limits can
be reduced.
Staff Response: As previously discussed, DWR will include additional monitoring points and
increased monitoring frequencies to support reduced limits if necessary. Additional BMPs will
be implemented for wastewater treatment units to further reduce TSS loading and turbidity.
DWR is in the process of working with DEMLR to address stormwater impacts.
Speaker 2 Glenda Hollifield, Citizen-
Comments:
• Has lived in the area for approximately 50 years and has witnessed Hawkins and Sullins
Branch go from aquatic rich to a dead, sediment filled creek because of mining.
• Settling ponds have overflowed at times.
• Stream is full of sediment during rain events.
• Sediment affects fish gills, eggs, and insects.
• Based on this stream, impacts from all six mines is probably greater.
Staff Response: The issues noted are stormwater issues managed by DEMLR and are outside of
the scope of these NPDES wastewater permits. However, DWR is working with DEMLR to
address such impacts.
Speaker 3 Danny Burleson,Mitchell County Chairman Board of Commissioners/EDC-
Comments:
• Supports the current draft permits.
• The mines provide jobs and economic benefits.
• Safety and clean water are part of the companies' mission.
• Rivers have improved over 50 years due to improved technology.
• Mine employees use the river as well,participate in stream clean-ups.
• Mines provide community support, have donated time, land, and money to various
community projects.
Staff Response: DWR's task is to implement CWA requirements part of which is to take into
account economic achievability in meeting the program's goals.

Speaker 4 Starli McDowell, Citizen & Toe River Valley Watch Founder-
Comments:
• Can remember when river through Spruce Pine ran white with sediment.
• Avid paddler and has worked on stream restoration and recreational projects, conducts
testing.
• Has developed a good relationship with the mines in addressing issues.
• Water quality has improved because of community engagement, mines are responsive to
concerns.
• The mines fund the Toe-Cane Watershed Coordinator position.
• The mines should receive credit for work they have done in improving water quality.
Staff Response: DWR is pleased to see a good working relationship between citizens groups and
industry in developing solutions to improve water quality and the community.
Speaker 5 Daniel Barron, Toe Valley River Watch-
Comments:
• Long time resident and can remember when one could walk across the river because of
sediment.
• River has greatly improved.
• The economy from the mines is good but need recreation also.
• Economy needs both.
• Not an either/or proposition with respect to economy and clean water.
Staff Response: See previous comment.
Speaker 6 Amelia Burnette, SELC-
Comments:
• Not a mining versus clean water issue,but mining and achieving clean water.
• North Toe is important for recreation and mussels.
• Thousands of pounds of pollutants are permitted to enter the water daily.
• DEQ should reduce limits which have been unchanged for decades.
• Pollutant loads should be reduced by improved technology and protection of WQS.
Staff Response: As discussed earlier, DWR will be increasing monitoring frequencies to better
evaluate treatment efficiency and monitor pollutant loads. Limits for fluoride and TSS are being
reduced and BMPs will be implemented to further reduce pollutant loading. The Division will
continue to work with DEMLR to further reduce impacts to the river.

Speaker 7 Christy Thrift,Recreation Business Owner; Speaker 8 Ethan Hollifield,Fly
Fishing Guide; Speaker 10 Adam Butler, Paddling Club Member; Speaker 14 John Arndt,
Kayaker-
Comments:
• Discharges are noticeable to paddlers, paddlers confuse the white discharge with rapids
and paddle through them. Discharges have a noticeable smell.
• Treatment technology improvements should be investigated.
• North Toe and Nolichucky Rivers last wild river in NC, less developed than other
mountain river basins.
• Conservation is necessary to protect the river and ecosystem for future generations.
Staff Response: The permit changes and extra monitoring should improve water quality while
allowing for later revision based on better data.
Speaker 9 James Carroll, Toe River Valley Watch-
Comments:
• Appreciates river but also appreciates mining economy.
• Keep improving water quality.
• Has been monitoring area streams for 10 years,the North Toe is least healthy, much more
sediment.
• Approximately 5,000 lbs/day permitted discharge of TSS from five of the six mines,
states a federal limit of Approximately 3,200 lbs/day of TSS that river can handle.
Staff Response: As discussed previously, DWR will be implementing additional changes to the
permits to reduce loading to the river. The Division is unaware of any federal TSS limits for this
segment of the North Toe River.
Speaker 11 Laura Lafluer, Citizen-
Comments:
• Understands uniqueness of product with increasing demand. Mining parent companies
are foreign based with profits in billions.
• The product supports local economy.
• Duty of companies to improve operations, they are not small companies with no money.
• Improve limits with better technologies.
Staff Response: DWR will look to determine TBELs in the future after further data collection as
discussed earlier. Additional conditions will be implemented in the interim to reduce pollutant
loading.

Speaker 12 Doug Myers, Director of Operations, Sibelco NA-
Comments:
• Sibelco one of largest employers in the area with millions invested in the local economy.
• Grew up in area and on the river,would not work for company that did not have
sustainability as core value.
• Products produced are part of the modern economy.
• Have invested 54 million into its wastewater facilities.
• Discharge records exceed permit requirements.
• Draft permits are sufficient.
• Long term member of the community.
Staff Response: DWR looks forward to working with Sibelco NA to improve water quality in the
North Toe River. Based on public comments and other considerations, additional conditions will
be placed in the draft permits.
Speaker 13 Sam Evans, SELC-
Comments:
• Important to get permit limits right.
• Permits need to get better every cycle. Limits have remained unchanged too long.
• High color and smell in river during rain events.
Staff Response: As noted earlier, additional conditions, revised limits, and monitoring will be
added to the permits as well as continuing collaboration with DEMLR.
Speaker 15 Bill Wygand, Citizen-
Comments:
• What is in wastewater?
• What percent of industrial water is recycled?
• Potable from effluent?
• Why is dilution a method disposal?
• Why do we give companies permit to discharge any waste into rivers?
Staff Response: DWR will be adding EPA Form 2C analyses to the permits to further
characterize the effluent. EPA procedures and NC administrative code allow for WQS to be met
using dilution at defined critical flows. Water recycling and potable reuse are just one of many
factor considered in whether a treatment technology is economically feasible including ultimate
disposal of reject waste. Dischargers are permitted within the scope of the federal Clean Water
Act and North Carolina regulations.

Speaker 16 Anne Dixson, Shareholder-
Comment: Supports increased permit limits.
Speaker 17 Pat Ford, Citizen-
Comment: How much taxes do the mines pay? There is deteriorating infrastructure and poverty
in the community.
Staff Response: These issues are outside of the scope of NPDES permitting.
Speaker 18 Ron Sterling, Citizen-
Comment: Thanks the mines for products but permit limits are older than cars in the parking lot.
Speaker 19 Rebecca Britain, Citizen-
Staff Response: Mines provide good jobs, worries that too restrictive limits would cause mines to
leave. Supports a clean river but socioeconomic considerations are very important.
Speaker 20 Ann Wilson, Citizen-
Staff Response: Need to consider the long term effects of pollution.
IV. Summary and Discussion
The Quartz Corp USA and Sibelco North America discharge treated industrial mineral ore
processing wastewater to the North Toe River through six mineral ore processing facilities. Five
of the facilities on the North Toe above the confluence with the South Toe River share a
wasteload allocation for fluoride due to the use of hydrofluoric acid in the mineral flotation
process. All six facilities are also permitted to discharge TSS. Extraction mines for the mineral
ore are also located within the watershed. Until EPA approval of the 2018 303(d) list, the North
Toe through the Town of Spruce Pine was impaired for turbidity.
Significant public interest was generated during the public comment and hearing period. The
public noted the river's high recreational appeal through tourism, kayaking, hiking, and fishing
with the need to also protect downstream uses. The river is also classified as trout waters, with
more stringent standards in place to protect the habitat and water quality for these more sensitive
fish species. Additionally, the river is home to the Appalachian Elktoe mussel, a federal and state
listed endangered species. The public claimed multiple impacts to the river from both the
processing facilities and ore mines. These impacts include stream sedimentation and loss of
habitat, high turbidity, fish kills, and loss of recreational opportunities. The majority of
comments received were in favor of improving the draft permits to include stricter limits.

Along with the general comments received, some more technical and detailed comments were
received regarding the permits. Possibly reducing permitted effluent limits through the
application of TBELs was suggested. The Division agrees with the development of TBELs but
will require more data to make a fair determination. The permits were also faulted for not
accounting for additional loading in the watershed for some parameters. In response, the
Division will re-evaluate its procedure for determining chloride loading into the river accounting
for the discharge of chlorides from the facilities and others possible sources. The WLA will be
reduced 20%to account for additional loading. DWR will also be increasing monitoring
frequencies for metals and turbidity in response to comments received, as well as adding EPA's
Form 2C analyses to the permits. In addition, conditions relating to BMPs and treatment
optimization will be added.
Among the mining impacts to the river noted were increased turbidity and other pollutant loading
from stormwater runoff. While stormwater permitting and monitoring are beyond the scope of
NPDES wastewater permitting, DWR is aware of these additional concerns. Stormwater
permitting is under the authority of DEMLR's Stormwater program. In 2015, EPA conducted
inspections of several of the facilities and mines in conjunction with DEMLR and DWR staff.
Most of the deficiencies found in those inspections were related to stormwater management. As a
result of these inspections and other concerns, EPA required additional monitoring beyond the
parameters usually required under DEMLR's general stormwater permit for mining operations.
In the cover letter for that general permit coverage, DEMLR staff stated that the facilities may be
directed to apply for NPDES wastewater coverage in the future pending results of that additional
monitoring. Based on data from the 2015 EPA inspection and DEMLR stormwater data, several
pollutants of concern were noted and added to the NPDES draft wastewater permits. DEMLR
data also indicates that there may be additional fluoride and TSS loading to the river from
stormwater runoff.
Following the public hearing, DWR and DEMLR began meeting and analyzing stormwater data
to determine the best options moving forward. DEMLR initiated a review of the subject facilities
and performed inspections in July 2019. The results can be found in Attachment D. They are also
reviewing stormwater permitting options at these and other sites to possibly include individual
permitting, modifying the general permit, or creating a new more industry specific general
permit.
Several comments received were in support of the mining operations, noting continued
improvements in the water quality, economic benefits, a willingness to engage with concerned
citizens and stakeholder groups, and direct investment in water quality initiatives and other
community programs. DWR's French Broad Basinwide plan notes that the companies work in
local watershed restoration efforts along with other agencies and groups such as the Blue Ridge
Resource Conservation District,the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission,the Toe River Valley Watch, the Nolichucky Watershed Partnership, and
local governments and their soil and water conservation districts. The Division encourages such

transparency in communication and cooperation with a variety of partners to improve water
quality in the watershed.
V. Recommended Actions NOTAPPROVED-, o
I recommend that the Division issue the six mining permits with the following changes:
• Increase the effluent monitoring frequency for turbidity to at least twice weekly.
• Add effluent monitoring for EPA Application Form 2C compounds (Tables A-C) and
also require the form for permit renewal.
• Reduce fluoride and TSS effluent loading by 20% to account for other sources
contributing to the fluoride and TSS wasteloads.
• Increase stream monitoring in the affected portions of the watershed and determine mass-
loading to the river from all sources for fluoride and other parameters of concern.
• Change the Red Hill facility's (NC0085839)weekly average limits to monthly average
limits.
• Increase the monitoring frequency for total aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc from
quarterly to monthly.
• Revise the RPA for chlorides to account for background chloride loading and limit the
permits if necessary.
• Add BMP conditions for stabilization pond treatment units and emergency (equilibrium)
pond units to include such conditions as: slope stabilization, freeboard, designated
ingress/egress locations for maintenance, etc.
• Add operations and maintenance special conditions to minimize pollutant loading.
• The facility should design the BMP and treatment optimization requirements in
consultation with the Asheville Regional Office after which they are filed with the
regional office and become an enforceable condition of the permit.
NOTAPPROVED