Ver _Complete File_19890515

da+SrATpo
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor May 15 , 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mr. John Marlar, Chief
Facilities Performance Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Subject: Water Quality Certification
Champion International Corp.
Draft NPDES Permit No. -
N00000272
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Marlar:
. In response to your request dated March 15, 1989, the
Division.of Environmental Management,has reviewed EPA's most
recent draft of Champion's Canton Mill NPDES Permit and
supporting materials. In accordance with the provisions of rules
for processing Water Quality Certifications contained in 15 NCAC
2H .0500, we published public notice of your request for
Certification on April 21, 1989.
Conditions of the EPA draft permit are sufficient to assure
compliance with Sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of
the Clean Water Act. The draft permit is hereby certified. The
only additional requirement which is recommended is the inclusion
of a routine monitoring station at the Waterville Lake dam for
dissolved oxygen. This additional monitoring station is needed
to gain information on the BOD/DO effects in Waterville Lake
since there is little information currently available as to the
effects on DO in the lake as a result of the Champion discharge.
The specific effluent limit on dioxin does not appear to be
necessary based upon current water quality standards presently
in effect in North Carolina. The inclusion of the effluent limit
based upon proposed North Carolina standards is premature and
Pollution Prevention Pays.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

;w,John Marlar
May 15, 1989
Page Two
presumptive. A reopener clause should be part of this document
so that 0.41.oxin .-Ji_mits may be introduced when complete info.. natic.ari
on dioxin is available. The dioxin minimization requirements are
appropriate and should be retained. The draft permit would still
comply with North Caroiina standards if the specific effluent
limit on dioxin were removed and the dioxin minimization
requirements retained."
This Certification is being issued consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 124.53 and with your request of March 15,
1989. We have responded to all points of your request and do not
waive any of our rights to certification or object to any
conditions or limitations which are contained in either the
current or future versions of the draft EPA permit.. If you have
any questions regarding this matter, please contact e.
/Sincer y,
u1 Wilm,
RPW:BM/k,ls
Marlar.ltr/vol.D01
cc: Steve Tedder
Forrest Westall
ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
ASHEVILLE. CITIZEN-TIMES
BUNCOMBE COUNTY ss
NORTH CAROLINA
THE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN
THE ASHEVILLE TIMES
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28802
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared Sharon Brown
Who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he (she)
is
Classified Phone Room Supervisor
(Owner, partner, publisher, or other officer or employee authorized to make this affidavit).
of ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES COMPANY,
(Name of Publishing Concern)
engaged in the publication of a newspaper known as
The Asheville Citizen Times
(Name of Newspaper)
published, issued, and entered as second class mail in the City of Asheville, in
said County and State; that he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and
sworn statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of
which is attached hereto, was published in
The Asheville Citizen Times
(Name of Newspaper)
on the following dates
April 21, 1989
w-ur,
o Envlronmen pI Manaoe-
menl Wafeer Quooilty Pfx 271Rsectlo
.O o68, alelOh, N
1}AapYIcattfioenca°n°bs tl
r cfed to Mr, William MIII!
(?19) 733 5008833 rn
it pa I W1110
CC?' Dlrecf
Environmental INonaoerne
April 41, 1989
(6 83) ! * ,
,
0101, Hot iot Pale
21 day oopff, April 19 89
this
(Notary Public)
My Commission expires
and that the said newspaper in which said notice, paper, document, or legal
advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597
of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within
the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This 21 `day of April 19 89
(Siganture of person making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me.
6 QD,
0a D r-,-` i `T I m= d I
NO ICE JIVICAAT
TIONI
QUA?I ICER
f
ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY
THE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN
THE ASHEVILLE TIMES
ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA ss.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
ASHF;VILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28802
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared Sharon Brown
Who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that he (she) is
Classified Phone Room Supervisor
(Owner, partner, publisher, or other officer or employee authorized to make this affidavit).
of ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES COMPANY,
(Name of Publishing Concern)
engaged in the publication of a newspaper known as
The Asheville Citizen Times
(Name of Newspaper)
published, issued, and entered as second class mail in the City of Asheville, in
said County and State; that he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and
sworn statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of
which is attached hereto, was published in
The Asheville.Citizen Times
(Name of Newspaper)
on the following dates
April 21, 1989
and that the said newspaper in which said notice, paper, document, or legal
advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597
of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within
the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
R.Pall el or,
C. Division
EEnvlronmentol onooemvp
April) 21i, 1989 0101 Mouses for Sale
This 21 day of April 19 89
(Siganture of person making affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me.
this 21 flay of April 19 89
(Notary Public)
My Commission expires
October 22, 1991
vr° vokTE
l DV
r r,_j L_T I IT C=J 11=?
QUAL??C8 1 ATION'4
ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES
T.;IE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN
Asheville 1
THE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 2090 ASHEVILLE, N.C. 28802
PHONE [phone]
V1 I NC DTV OF NATUTAL
V1
ATTN CINDY S PERRY
E P.O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH NC
T O: L
RESOURC
INVUlUh-5TATEMENT
air t Ilm
?7h1? ADMINISTRATIVE SERvicES,
RESOURCE
I ACCOUNT NUMBER PAGE NO.
1108-163-
INVOICE DATE INVOICENUMBER
4/26/89 b'? 3
TERMS: BILL FOR ADVERTISING IS DUE
AND PAYABLE ON THE FIRST DAY
OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING PUBLICATION
11/2 % LATE CHARGE DUE ON UNPAID BALANCES.
WHERE AN ADVERTISING CONTRACT IS IN FORCE, AMOUNTS BILLED
ON THIS INVOICE ARE SUBJECT TO SHORT RATE OR REBATE AT
EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACT. THE AMOUNT OF THE SHORT RATE
OR REBATE IF ANY, CANNOT BE ASSERTAINED UNTIL THE END OF
THE CONTRACT TERM.
CODES
1. AM WITH FM PICKUP 4. SATURDAY CITIZEN-TIMES
Z FM WITH AM PICKUP COMBO
3. SUNDAY CITIZEN-TIMES 5. OTHER
COMBO
PLEASE ENTER
AMOUNT PAID
TO INSURE PROMPT AND ACCURATE CREDIT PLEASE DETACH AT PERFORATION AND RETURN WITH YOUR PAYMENT.
DATE-' 46,Nl1MBEH ' DESCRIPTION' cone 'Absiu E ToTALSIZE ',RATE,'__ -AMOUNT

)4/26 6283 RE! WATER 0t1AL.TTY CERTIFI 5 1 74 64.38
TOTAL AD CHARGES 64.38
PREVIOUS BALANCE PAYMENTS MISC. DEBIT/CREDIT PAST DUEBALANCE CURRENTCHARGES LATE CHARGE NEW BALANCE
64.38 64.38 64.313
THE ADVERTISER AGREES TO ACCEPT AS CORRECT THE MONTHLY STATEMENT TO ADVERTISER FROM PUBLISHER BOTH AS TO AMOUNT OF SPACE AND RATE BILLED UNLESS
ADVERTISER, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF SAID STATEMENT NOTIFIES PUBLISHER IN WRITING THAT SAME IS INCORRECT. A I %% LATE CHARGE WILL BE APPLIED
ON UNPAID BALANCES.
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 108-163-7
INVOICE DATE: 4/26/89
T14IS IS A MEMO T-JILL FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LEGAL AD. A STATEMENT WILL BE RENDERED
AT '1"FIE END OF THE MONTH SHOWING G AL.LACTIVITY FOR YOUR ACCOUNT. PLEASE DO NOT
L RVI?-C?A%%6211" MAC:ISINUl OftYYNI? P.O. BOX 2090 ASHEVILLE, N..C. 28 02 HONE J704) 252 6111., N.C. TOL?LF FREE 1-800-452-2841

m
1
CL
m
o
-' s
a =.
a
a
a o
v -?
6
a w
4
a 0
O
rr
y o.
r 3
m
c
0
O ?
r
? •c
A
S
A
1
0
s
r
? 3
D
A
x
Vl

N_
O 9

e
0
c
c
N
m
p
m
z
T
A
D
-i
O
z
M
z
0
O
z ^
m
D
z
0
D
p
O
a
m
y
Ul
Z
O
A
M
z
C
3
M
s
0
s
p
M
V!
A
V
-1
O
z
z
0
n
M
a
3
O
a
z
\
"U T
z ?
m
0 0
?
D
p D z

O z j m cvo
O>
\
0
r

0 z
r

.A
W p
a m

c p_

7D A
0
T M
A
D
\(?
(?? m
L
V.
C m
i
m
W -Zi
Q v
o
?

Z
co
C
D
M
M C
?
M
o Z
CA M

O D p
0
=
aS
coo C
0
mmD
S
m c m
Z cn
=! D
r 2
00 Z Z
C
n
a O0
1 ? p
v
2 ?
A
M m C
Cl) Z
o =
M .?
N ? C
i m
<
z

00 D
70 -u m

Ml
Z
zs O
c n

3m
T

?0
M

!?`
?.vs STATE,,,
J IV
QWM N4?
RAY 0 1 1 State of North Carolina
I ?)t?pn t PKatural Resources and Community Development
01E?1Af fON? E SECTION Asheville Regional Office
?ANCN,
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Ann R Orr
Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
April 28, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Mills
401 Project Coordinator
Through: Forrest R. Westal
Regional Water Qua ervisor / ARO
From: Max L. Haner, Environmental Chemist
Water Quality Section / ARO
Subject: Comments and Recommendation
401 Certification
Champion International
NPDES Permit No. NC0000272
Haywood County, North Carolina
The matter of the proposed issuance of NPDES Permit No. N00000272 for
Champion International - Canton Mill has been reviewed and the
following ARO comments are offered. The three year time schedule
included in the document to achieve final limits and WQ compliance is
consistent with the Company's proposal for implant modifications (oxygen
delignification) presented during the first permit draft review of
April, 1987, to meet instream compromise color requirements. A major
difference with this draft is that the Company will further reduce the
total daily flow from a projected 35 MDG in 1987 to 29 MGD at the end of
the compliance schedule period, and curtail production during low river
flow periods to achieve a 50 unit true color limit at the NC-Tenn State
line. Reference to the "apparent color" term is inappropriate in that
it is not directly attributable to the paper making or treatment
process at the Tenn. line due to other uncontrollable and largely non
point source drainage basin contributions, and dependent upon management
of the Waterville Lake reservoir by CP&L's Hydro plant. The term
"apparent color" should be removed from the document. EPA certainly has
the authority to recognize the enforceable aspects of an "apparent
color" as a WQ interpretation directed toward Champion and should have
little difficulty supporting this position.
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
416- Y
Page 2
April 28, 1989
Memorandum
Champion 401 Certification
Of concern also is the willingness by EPA to establish a permit limit
for dioxin based upon WQ standards not yet adopted by North Carolina,
and with the national pulp & paper industry study of some 104 paper
mills and export vectors still incomplete; albeit drawing to conclusion.
The time normally demanded by the professional and regulatory community
alike to complete responsible review, assessment, and application of
these data and study results would make a limit premature. Detection
procedures for this parameter are still under development. Questions
such as how dioxin is being introduced in the waste stream (presence in
fish tissue - absence in the water column), bioaccumulation factors, WQ
uptake, cancer potency, and overall risk assessment are unresolved at
present even though studies are progressing. Consistent with DEM
permitting procedures where the parameter data and effects information
is incomplete, it is recommended that a dioxin limit not be present in
the final permit. A reopener clause should be part of this document so
that dioxin limits may be introduced when complete information is
available. Even though the data base for dioxin is current, the
unresolved questions warrant restraint in assigning a specific number
until after both the industry and-regulatory community has fully
addressed this issue. Most recent discussions in the Division
concerning dioxin and paper making facilities indicate that this agency
will likely require dioxin minimization efforts at all North Carolina
paper mills along with extensive effluent, influent, sludge, and in
stream monitoring without establishing a specific limit in the effluent.
The draft permit would still comply with North Carolina standards if the
specific limit were removed and the dioxin minimization requirements
retained.
The 85% chronic toxicity level included in the final limits (post
construction) is appropriate and should be certified by DEM. Placement
of a chronic toxicity requirement in the permit during the three year
construction period would be inappropriate and premature considering
that a significant process change would likely be needed anyway and the
construction program required of the company to achieve compliance with
the other limitations will result in the major process change. The
effects of this change in addressing the toxicity question are unknown
as present. Recommend no interim toxicity limit be included in the
permit. Monitoring is appropriate as proposed in the draft.
As there is incertainty as to the in stream and lake water quality
effects that will result from the process modifications, there is some
merit in requiring that the permit contain a reopener clause to allow
review of the BOD/DO question. However, since review of the effects of
the process change will likely consume the two years remaining to
expiration, there would be no realistic gain in making this point in
the certification. The addition of a routine monitoring station at
the Waterville lake dam would be reasonable and is recommended.

Page Three
Memorandum
April 28, 1989
Champion 401 Certification
In general the draft permit meets all of North Carolina's water quality
standards. As noted the permit would still meet our standards and
program requirements without a specific dioxin limit. The dioxin
minimization requirements of the permit are extensive and reflect the
most current knowledge of how the creation of dioxin occurs in a
bleached kraft paper facility. Because of current laboratory detection
procedures and the proposed effluent limit for dioxin, there is simply
no environmental benefit to limiting dioxin in the discharge at this
time. Much greater benefit is anticipated through reducing the
potential for dioxin creation. Every effort should be made to point out
to EPA that North Carolina disagrees with placing a dioxin effluent
limit in the Champion permit.
Should you wish to discuss this matter in more detail, please advise.
xc: Trevor Clements
Randy Dodd
Aw .. a
W
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 13, 1989
DECEIVED
TAP, MM A I?MY TM
APR I I ????19
TO: Bill Mills
Ken Eagleson WATLF ,-;IJ! ITY 0ECTI04111
Forrest Westall OPEPP,760!`e_,; P"7? -'1111
FROM: Randy Dodd __ b
THRU: Trevor Clements \Z?
SUBJECT: Champion 401 / Draft Permit Review: Preliminary Comments
The following comments are provided for your review with regard to the
draft EPA permit for Champion. I have focused on BOD/DO and flow issues,
and have not attempted to address other issues in the draft permit.
BOD/DO
The results of the Versar study are expected by the end of April. It
is my understanding that we can expect to see the following conclusions:
1) Oxygen from the sidestream aeration system is only retained for a very
short distance in the Pigeon River.
2) The current ultimate BOD inputs from dischargers besides Champion are
insignificant.
3) 90% of Champion's BOD reaches Walters Lake. The study was not designed
to address DO in Walters Lake.
4) Reactions in the free flowing stream (SOD, photosynthesis/respiration,
deoxygenation, nitrification) are unimportant factors on DO.
5) Temperature effects of the discharge on DO saturation are considerable.
Other pertinent information to include in reviewing permit requirements
related to BOD/D0:
1) A 1982 CP&L study indicated that DO was < 3.0 mg/l throughout Walters
Lake.
2) EPA will probably delay approval of the Waynesville permit with second-
ary limits until the Versar study has been finalized.
3) DEM previously predicted that effluent limitations of BOD5 = 4 mg/1 and
NH3-N = 1 mg/1 would be necessary to meet the DO standard in the free flow-
ing stream, without sidestream aeration.

4) The daily average effluent BODS indicated with the permit application
was 14.4 mg/l.
The draft permit contains the following requirements:
1) Period BODS (mg/1) BoDS (#/D) (Q mgd)
First three years 16 6472 48.5
Next two years 27 6472 29
(Concentration limits are not in the permit, and are shown for compar-
ative purposes only.)
2) The effect of process changes for color removal, on BOD removal is
unknown.
3) The fact sheet indicates that sidestream oxygenation "has been deter-
mined to be acceptable based on .... 40 CFR 125.3 (f)", and the Champion
"agrees to waive any opportunity to request a variance ..." and "demon-
strates that such a technique is the preferred environmental and economic
method to achieve the standards ....
4) Self-monitoring for BODS and DO is above (but not in) Walters Lake.
Based on the above, it is apparent that under proposed permitted con-
ditions, a substantial oxygen ;demand will reach Walters Lake, and (unmoni-
tored).DO below the standard is quite feasible as a result of lake influent
BOD (and not primary productivity). While EPA has indicated in the Fact
Sheet that BOD/DO considerations will be "revisited". There appears to be
need for more specifics on a strategy (e.g., reopener, self-monitoring sites
in and below lake, lower BODS limit after process changes and flow reduc-
tion) to address this issue. The fact that the sidestream system is an
inefficient method for maintaining the DO standard and is not addressing the
problem areas of the river and lake also needs to be addressed.
Flow
The USGS is planning to drop matching money on all gages on the West
Fork Pigeon River, East Fork Pigeon River, and Pigeon River. The permit
requires monitoring on the Pigeon at Canton, at rivermile 55.5 near Junal-
uska, and near Hepco. It may be appropriate to request that EPA specifies
these requirements on the Effluent Limitations page. An incentive also
exists in the draft permit for Champion to measure flow above Canton to
determine an alternative flow at Canton for toxicity testing based on the
minimum instantaneous release from Lake Logan.
Toxicity Testing
The IWC can currently approach or equal 100% at low flow. The draft
permit requires toxicity testing (twice a year for three years) at 85%. The
test concentration appears to have been calculated as follows:
Permitted flow x 100 = 29 mgd x 100 = 85%
7Q10 52.7 cfs

The test concentration is based on the permitted flow for the period
beginning three years after issuance. Therefore, the permit will not
require ensuring no chronic instream toxicity in accordance with NC proce-
dures during the first three years of the permit. Please note also that the
need for specific test concentrations besides 85% has not been formally
specified.
Please advise if questions.
RD/gh
cc: Jimmie Overton
Jay Sauber

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor April 25, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mr. John Marlar, Chief
Facilities Performance Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Subject: Request for State Certification
Champion International Corp.
NPDES No. NC0000272
Haywood County
Dear Mr. Marlar:
In response to your request for Water Quality Certification under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by
EPA for Champion International Corporation, Canton Mill, we have initiated
processing of the Certification request. Public Notice requesting public
comments on the Certification request has been issued and staff review of
the draft permit and supporting documentation is underway. Once the
public comment period has concluded and we complete our review
including responses submitted in response to the notice, a final action on
the Certification will be taken.
I do not foresee any problem at this time in meeting the date of May 15
you requested for a decision on the Certification. Should I find that
additional time will be necessary, I will advise you at the earliest date
possible. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Mr. Bill Mills at 733-7015, ext. 521.
i ?
Sin erely',
R. Paul Wilms
cc: Steve Tedder
Forrest Westall
Dennis Ramsey Pollution Prevention Pays
Bill' Mills
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
? - t Ja?(QO STq?s
lift W
14;44 PAONSOP?
MAR 1 5 1989
REF: 4WM-FP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
845 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA,, GEORGIA 80865
R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Co munity Development
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RE: Request for State Certification
Champion International Corporation
NPDES No. N00000272
,R?8(9'50
LtJE32 D?
RAR 20 1989
a?
MqR 989, A
WA
l ` r,/
DIV. Of ENVIRO*?flilE?!T,,`,I-MiAt4AGEMENT
Raleigh, NC
Dear Paul,
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby requests state certification
of the above referenced National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The draft permit has been modified based on review of all
camnents received during the previous public comment period ending on
February 22, 1988. The revised draft permit ands upporting materials are
enclosed.with this letter.
We have..interpreted North. Carolina water quality standards to establish
effluent . limitations!,.and..permit.. conditiQns in the draft NPDES permit. The
draft permit also incorporates the requirements of the permit issued by the
State on May 14, 1985, and the requirements of the previous State water
quality certification dated February 5, 1988.
The limits for color in the draft permit are based on the revised North
Carolina and the existing Tennessee water quality criteria for instream
color. EPA approved the revision to North Carolina water quality standards
on August 11, 1988.
In accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) and
the NPDES regulations (40 C.F.R. 124.53), state certifications must be in
writing and must include:
(1) Conditions which are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable
provisions. of Clean Water Act Sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303, 306, and
307 and with appropriate requirements of State law;
(2) Any conditions more stringent than those in the draft permit which the
State,'f inds necessary to meet the requirements listed in paragraph (1)
above. For each more stringent condition, the Clean Water Act or State
law references upon which that condition is based must be cited. Failure
to provide such a citation waives the right to certify with respect to
that condition; and
:"-
-2-
(3) A statement . ot.. the- .extent to.wh. ch : each condition of the. draft' permit'
cam be made .less-:stringent without, violating the requirements: of State
law, `including water quality standards. Failure to provide this statement
for any condition waives the right to certify or object to any less
stringent condition which may be established during the EPA permit
issuance process.
In accordance with 40 C.F.R. 124.53(c), EPA cannot issue or deny NPDES permits
until the State has either granted or denied certification, or waived its
right to certify. Also, in accordance with the regulations, the State will
be deemed to have waived its right to certify unless that right is exercised
within 60 days.frcm-the date of this letter 'unless EPA finds that unusual
circumstances require a longer time for certification. EPA anticipates that
in sane cases certification cannot be provided within 60 days. Therefore,
if a longer time is needed, please advise us in writing of the nature of the
delay and anticipated date when certification will be ccimpleted.
Sincerely yours,
L??h
ohn T Malar ief
Facilities Performance Branch
Enclosures.
cc: J. Oliver Blackwell, Champion International/Canton, N.C.
Mary Lee Ransmeier, Champion International/Stamford, Conn.
-?

PUBLIC NOTICE
?1 R
WA QUALITY
sECri®N
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Water Management Division - Facilities Performance Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
[phone]
Public Notice No. 89N0001
March 29, 1989
NOTICE OF PROPOSED REISSUANCE OF A
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTDI PERMIT
AND ESTABLISH,"IENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGY
TO REDUCE THE DISCHARGE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
AND AVAILABILITY OF RESPONSE TO CW ENTS,
FACT SHEET AND DRAFT PERMIT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to reissue a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to the C.a ` .? bnrrrt?cl '
Corporation, Stamford, Connecticut, for its Carfn,Mi`11 located on Main"Street in
Canton, Haywood County, North Carolina. The Canton Mill is an k? ?,. -turtng 'facility -producing food board and fine paper
(SIC Code 2621). The application, NPDES Number N00000272, describes one point
source which enters the Pigeon River, which is classified as Class C.Waters
suitable for secondary recreation and fish propagation. The Company proposes
to reduce the size of the existing mill.
The proposed NPDES permit contains limitations on the amounts of pollutants
allowed to be discharged and was drafted in accordance with the provisions of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.) and other lawful standards and
regulations. The 1987 Water Quality Act added Section 304(1) to the Clean Water
Act. This section requires identification of known point sources discharging
toxic pollutants listed in Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act that cause a
water quality standard to be exceeded. It also requires the control of toxic
pollutants by June 4, 1992. It is intended that the permit will serve as an
individual control strategy for control of toxic pollutants for this facility.
The pollutant limitations and other permit conditions are tentative and open to
comment frcm the public.
The conditions in the draft permit being proposed at this time have been
established based on a review of comments received in two previous public ccmnent
periods. The original draft permit was announced in Public Notice No. 870001 on
April 9, 1987, and the public corr?ent period was extended to expire on September 22,
1987, in Public Notice No. 870001A on May 22, 1987. The public coffrtent period was
reopened in Public Notice No. 870001B on December 2, 1987, and was closed on
February 22, 1988.

-2-
EPA has prepared responses to the comments received in the previous public
comment periods and a summary of these responses is available for public review.
These responses as well as copies of the new draft permit and fact sheet have
been posted in public libraries in the following counties: Cocke County, Tennessee;
Sevier County, Tennessee; Blount County, Tennessee; Knox County, Tennessee;
Jefferson County, Tennessee; Greene County, Tennessee; Haywood County, North
Carolina; Buncombe County, North Carolina; and Madison County, North Carolina.
These items are also available for review at the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development regional office in Asheville,
North Carolina and the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment regional
office in Knoxville, Tennessee. The addresses for these locations are attached
to this notice.
Persons wishing to comment upon or object to any aspects of j)ernrit
reissuance or wishing to request a public hearing, are invited to submit same in
writing within thirty (30) days of this notice to the office of Public Affairs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia
30365, ATT=ION: Pis. Suzanne Durham. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.13, any person
who believes any condition of the permit is inappropriate must raise all
ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments in full,
supporting their position, by the close of the comment period. The public
notice number and NPDES number should be included in the first page of conTnents.
All comments received within the 30-clay period will be considered in the
formulation of a final determination regarding the permit. Also, within the 30
day period, any interested person may request a public hearing. If a public
hearing is scheduled, the hearing will be announced in accordance with 40 CFR
124.10 and 124.12. y
After_ consideration of all written comments and the requirements and policies
in the Act and appropriate regulations, the EPA Regional Administrator will make
a determination regarding the permit issuance. If the determination is substantially
unchanged from that announced by this notice, the EPA Regional Administrator will
so notify all persons submitting written comments. If the determination is
substantially changed, the EPA Regional Administrator will issue a public notice
indicating the revised determination. No issues shall be raised by any party
that were not submitted to the administrative record as part of the preparation
of and comment on the draft permit, unless good cause is shown for the failure to
submit them in accordance with 40 CFR 124.76. Additional information regarding
an evidentiary hearing is available in 40 CFR 124, Subpart E, or by contacting
the office of the Regional Counsel at the address above,or at [phone].
r
-3-
The administrative record, including application, fact sheet, draft permit,
a sketch showing the exact location of the discharge, comments received, a summary
of EPA's responses to cormients received in the prior public conTrent period, and
additional information on hearing procedures is available at cost by writing
the EPA at the address above, or for review and copying at 345 Courtland Street,
N.E., 3rd floor, Atlanta, Georgia, between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Copies will be provided at a minimal cost per page.
Please bring the foregoing to the attention of persons who you know will be
interested in this matter.

LIBRARIES
i,
BUNCOMBE COU'.,'TY :
GREENE COUNTY:
ASHEVILLE-BUNCOMBE LIBRARY
67 Haywood Street
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Tele: 704/255-5203
WEAVERVILLE BRANCH LIBRARY
P.O. Box 633
Weaverville, N.C. 28787
Tele: 704/645-3592
BLACK MOUNTAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY
105 Dougherty Road
Black Mountain, N.C. 28711
Tele: 704/669-2652
MADISON COU".dTY:
mADISON COUNTY PUBLIC L IBP.ARY
Hain Street, P.O. Box 236
Marshall, N.C. 28753-0236
Tele: 704/649-3741
HAYWOOD COUNTY:
HAY;-MD COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
402 S Haywood Street
Waynesville, N.C. 28786-4398
Tele: 704/452-5169
CANTON BRANCH LIBRARY
36 Park Street
Canton, N.C. 28716
Tele: 704/648-2924
HAYWOOD COMttUNITY COLLEGE
LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER
Freedlander Drive
Clyde, N.C. 28721
Tele: 704/627-2821
JEFFERSON COUNTY:
DANRIDGE MEMORIAL LIBRARY
P.O. Box 207
Danridge, Tenn. 37725
Tele: 615/397-9758
BALES MEMORIAL LIBRARY
1006 Russell Ave.
Jefferson City, Tenn. 37760
Tele: 615/475-9094
GREENEVILLE/GREENS COU17TY PUBLIC LIBRARY
210 N Main Street
Greeneville, Tenn. 37743
Tele: 615/638-5034
BLOUNT COUNTY:
BLAUNT COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
301 McGhee Street
Maryville, Tenn. 37801
Tele: 615/982-0981
COCKE COUNTY:
STOKELY MEMORIAL LIBRARY
302 E. Broadway
Newport, Tenn. 37821
Tele: 615/623-3832
SEVIER COUNTY:
SEVIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
321 Court Avenue
Sevierville, Tenn. 37862
Tele: 615/453-3532
KNOX COU[TTY :
LAWSON rlcGHEE LIBRARY
500 W Church Avenue
Knoxville, Tenn. 37902-2505
Tele: 615/544-5750
STATE OFFICES:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPATMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
59 Woodf in Place
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Tele: 704/251-6208
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH A'D'D
ENVIRONMENT
2700 Middlebrook Pike
Suite 220
Knoxville, Tenn. 37921
Tele: 615/594-6035

.0%U S."
? fY
r`yh? ?2P
PROS, V
COPY TO: MILLS WE
KLIMEK S?
CLEMENT S
EAGLES C'N
May 22, 1989
REF: 4WM-FP

Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources & Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wilms:
ON. OF ENORP-MMENTAL MANAGEMENT
12sjrgll NC
M, Ay 0
V. I

Thank you for the Section 401 Certification dated May 15,
1989, of the Champion International Corporation draft permit
(N00000272). Your, comments regarding the dioxin limitation
miss the point. The dioxin limitation was not based upon
proposed North Carolina water quality standards. As noted in
the Fact Sheet, the dioxin limit is EPA's interpretation of
the existing narrative standard at 15 NCAC 2B .0208(b) and
.0211(b)(3)(L).
If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please call.
Sincerely yours,
__?( )7
12
f T. Marlar, Chief
Facilities performance Branch

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV i
345 COURTLANO STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30316,
:ALL _
3ER
F.:
MAY 24 1909
at?.?+. .. aR J !ED ST4l?S
"1+114 PRO eo° ll
Permit No. N00000272
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. the "Act"),
Champion International Corporation
Champion Papers Division
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at a..,;'.
Main Street ?AR
Canton, North Carolina u?y
- WATER _ ALITY
to receiving waters named SEC 7'/ON w
the Pigeon River
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth herein. The permit consists of this cover sheet, Part I
6 page(s), Part II 16 page(s), Part III 4 page(s) and Part IV 5 pages.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
MAR l 5 1gAq
Date Signed
0 .,. r
Bruce R. Barrett, Director
Water Management Division
0
? ? ? W H :i H W W W W H W :i W H W W W W ^ L
(6 w a
U
a
i O a s a a U U a (I U a a
`(, SJ 41 4j 11 4.) aJ 41 41 M H 1j 4J 1) I
a rp U) V: U) w U) Ul U) H H (n U; (n HJ1
14
N (? U] a U U U u u u V U u C? U CL -lZ -4
,7_, RS X
00 x o o
z ?++3 ~ G O 'H-+a
0 0 (1) :3
41 2:
4 4 ,1q J? Z H 'may H r? ,'I ?'I H l- ?
•"1 ,7y .7'I .1t .7'1 4 >1
H ~+ JJ I.a a fz. O (0 t0 (p a r6 a (0 (0 a (0
.? ?cn v o0 or 3Q3xa88na(n?QQ Lo >U)
Q)
aaa
w C. ? l x
c' w M: ?u?
o
•+?-? Cam) •w-a U '--I I I I I ° I I I ! I I I I
Er L U
` o (P
(a o
o
z ?
C O W
I I I ! I I I i I I I ?+ ?2
--I Le)
41
> 41
O (A aJ H -4 -4
>` c (a
41 -q w 0 2-4
m tt x Ln o
'o aJ rE 2: N CO M M M I D ?+
a) S-' H I H I I I I I I H I I 1 1 I a] 04J C)
U) X- Lw
U O Q r6 I I Q Q? v
Wa' `ww ? ? Q U-) Ma a a u •?'3 c
m >1 C14 (? r C:)M N eM
4-4
U 't3 9 d' N W
4 4 1
(n 4-1
C
\ v 1 O
~ O '1? aG I I H i F( I I I I I I H I I I 1 I w a u w
1-01
.- I m O C U
4j CN
? t •? RS
U 'd w m a
0 G
p I.a i + (ts N 2 fu a)
0 4.J t,
O? fa Di - C N O 41 (n O 0 1 c U) a)
T ? U >1 ? 'U U G 1J r i C • •-1 rC) C
H >., ro a a) x m a G? v? a? c a) ? .?' aL
4.) 10 ?C" o a a G x r-I " a, 41
H •? rt ca HO O w 0) 't3 O O O +? tt C H -?
.a a 3 Mme. s?O.?a H v)aC a
a U x U U) U) 10 U) m roC
+) a U U W 'D a O 4J -I a.0 ?4 r 11 O +1 c
w cA C C
1W •-? E-, E c m > U M m? M O .c c w a] oo C a cn
41
r C 3 U m M (n rt U O r+ C v M. 7 sv ro a
cz sv v o c 1) U) U a??•? cr ws CM 1 c
LC 7 (?: a [i.+ co E-i a] G.+ E-i U E" (%i a U a.+ (L U N E'•? (,i H E'^ W ".?
? a
0 C C
O j
,.,
O C? C
w W ::D =1 7-1 42 4:
a
W 'D C1) W H :s E-•? W W w W H W W CL: ? i W Ci W '? ?:
? ? w U
N U
U C) N U U N N I O ai U
M H LJ J 1 1? I
S r 41 41 41 a..) J-) J.) 41
H •r-1 •,-+ .,...? .,.a .,,.q .,-1 •,-I I H •r-1 •r•1 -4
a? 3 a u1 v to too to w H H cn o cr
EE & .Q CL U U CEEL N
N p)3 cn a UU UUUUvUUUUaN>`aU(d L) 88 a X
O O O
y
E O
Z C >1 >r >1 >4 ? N ? a01 4.) m CT
N Z fn fn L 1 r--I r-I r-I H x r { .1C .!C r -I 1.1 I.d r--I .!G ,"I r-I
I (d 11 la C r 1 ., r I .? N •rl O •r i 8f u r? r•4 .,4
?Q r- N
4-1
JJ $•• rt
(Q t? fu O
aaa ?1-4 ?41
4
r 0 21
0 x ri y 1
1
a?
? uo
? ? U ,-I I I I I ° I I I I I I I I I
84
9 o ?' n o
?y 0 C w
ri O Cu
Q •S
_ .1 4-)
4 N CJ E k
J-1
H '?" !1J a C
4-4 c
t
.? w E 1 1 1 1 I 1 11 I 1 Q QZ a i y5
W O ?O a 0*1 O N C)
N
N O O LJ ?-1 O
41
O ?+ C
cc C
.0 Lr)
.U U O U I v I H I ?+ I I .I i I H H H I i i I Q O
rt 41 co 41
. 4 LO ?
lu 41 a C ca (a u?i m ?' /??°' ca
' 4J
MC- a W Qla3
o
U) C:
y >t0 ? 0 0 000 tom!) o u.GR
a) (o - 0 04 ai Qi N C4 cco m N U) Q' lD W U 14
w C?, .C2
O \ N (rz)
H w .. E ?C i N I O? H I ?-+ 1 I 1 I I H H H 1 I I I U U
RS (L) r-1?4 N 00 U N N C C U
•to 4.1 O Q -q U) !!? U) U) w "
p C
U) r 1 U C
(/) IT ? 41 ,?-1 O ro 44 41 .,q 44 -4 .14 ri)
V JJ (U Z Q N q? 0 W 411
Ea 3 tl1 N q f 1 r-I ?, CA O x 1 O ra
p) -, C 4> O w r-i O C cn N
w n, a? C
?, U > a1 C 4-) •r'+ •r4
F 4j d) N m C: r 2 Qd
U) C x0 >raVE Q? x
H a) co ri Lr) 0 41 0) x 10 C O O Q .41 U .C c M a ra s4 0 .,-1 (2) F N °' b ? W U)
- U) r?
L 1 U U Ln rp rc; a
E•-4 41 ? rG U) a W •," 1 'o C Ti U O 11 r-1 d.0 w _q C 0 4 co C :I ? w c O
E C rz LC > U m m a M O C
c •?
Cz Q -W C T U E; C $-j u N r I U U O r. -? H d la
.,.i 1.1 .C U Q R3 U1 U; (p r0 .+••1 U .W O
?R
CZ ?-C U O JJ U) U 1-1 4..1 •,-? [ r-1 W r--? G JJ M I U W U
C .y
(i m a .-+ • i C r Q1 d C O D U C w t •" p w
w aU v a U-c:1F QyFUFcnFaU aw.??FN - Fwr-1 3
LO
i
H
a
00
W
w

•
Part I
Page I-3
Permit No. NC0000272
2. The monthly average instream temperature measured at a point 0.4 miles
downstream of the discharge location shall not exceed 32.0°C during the
months of July, August, and September and shall not exceed 29.0°C during
the months of October through June. The monthly average instream tempera-
ture measured at this location shall not exceed the monthly average
instream temperature of the upstream monitoring location by more than
13.9°C.
3. The concentration of dissolved oxygen in the effluent shall not be less
than 6.0 mg/1.
4. The effluent pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater
than 9.0 standard units.
5. (a) Monitoring requirements for apparent and true color and limitations
for true color are as follows:
(1) Influent and effluent shall be monitored for apparent and true
color once per day by a composite sample.
(2) Apparent and true color levels shall be monitored twice per
week by grab sample at the following instream locations:
i. The Pigeon River just upstream of the waste treatment
plant outfall (prior to mixing with the discharge);
ii. The Pigeon River, between the discharge from Watervi-Ile ---
Reservoir and the mouth of Big Creek (prior to mixing
with water of Big Creek);
iii. The mouth of Big Creek (prior to mixing with the waters
of the Pigeon River); and
iv. The Pigeon River at the bridge located approximately one
mile downstream of the North Carolina/Tennessee state
line. For the purposes of this permit, this sampling
station is designated the Pigeon River at the North
Carolina/Tennessee state line.
All instream samples collected for these streams shall be
representative of the Pigeon River and Big Creek, respectively.
q ?
Part I
Page I-4
Permit No. N00000272
(3) Compliance shall be measured through a calculation as follows:
SL = (WTPc / 8.34) + ((HEf - WIPf) x Dc)
C HE f x 10 (-0.224 x LOG (HEf) + 0.781)
Where: WTPc = Monthly average Waste Treatment Plant discharge
color - calculated as the average of all daily
loading values (expressed as pounds of true
color per day) for a calendar month
WTPf = Monthly average Waste Treatment Plant discharge
flow (mgd)
HEf = Monthly average HEPCO, North Carolina flow (mgd) -
daily flow values lower than 81.4 mgd shall be
entered as 81.4 mgd
SLc = Instream true color at North Carolina - Tennessee
border (State line)
Dc = Color Concentration of all Dilution Streams
(13 C.U.)
The SLc shall be calculated for each calendar month. The SLc
value calculated for each month shall not exceed 50 true color
units. Any exceedance of 50 true color units for this value
shall be considered as a violation of this permit.
For the purposes of this pezmit only, "pounds of true color" is
calculated by the following equation:
Effluent Flow x Effluent True Color Level x 8.34
(mgd) (Platinum Cobalt Units)
(c) The method of analysis for effluent true color used to measure
con pliance with the effluent color limitation shall be the procedure
referenced in FR 39 430.11(b) (May 29, 1974).
(d) All samples collected for color analysis shall be measured and
reported as true color and apparent color using the following
procedures :
(i) The procedure referenced in FR 39 430.11(b) (May 29, 1974) -
true and apparent color
(ii) The procedure specified as "204 A - Visual Comparison Method,"
in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
16th edition, 1985 - true and apparent color.

Part I
Page I-5
Permit No. N00000272
6. The chronic no observable effect level (NOEL) of the discharge shall
not be less than 85%. The permit will be adjusted to reflect a new
percent value for the NOEL based on operation of the upstream reservoir
(See Part III(C)(4)). The new percent for the NOEL will be based on the
minimum instantaneous flow for the Pigeon River considering the effects
of flow releases from Lake Logan and the effluent flow of the reconfigured
mill. After the minimum instantaneous flow has been established,
maintenance of the upstream flow will be included as a requirement of
this permit. The NOEL shall be determined utilizing an acceptable
biomonitoring procedure developed under Part III(C)(1), on Page III-2
of the permit. If, after the effective date for the limitation for
effluent toxicity, any one test indicates that the NOEL is less than 85%
for a specific sampling period, an additional toxicity test using the
specified methodology and the same test species shall be conducted within
2 weeks.
7. Where composite samples are specified in the monitoring requirements of
this permit, a 24 hour composite sample is required except for dioxins
which is described in Part IV.
=8. Water quality standards of the State of North Carolina presently contain
narrative criteria which state that requirements and appropriate limitations
for discharge of 2,3,7,8 TODD will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
However, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (NCEMC) has
authorized issuance of a public notice of proposed water quality standards
which include a numeric criterion for 2,3,7,8 TCDD. The criterion proposed
by the NCEMC at this time (0.014 picograms per liter) is consistent with
the value contained in the document, EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for 2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin for protection of human health
from consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish at a risk level of
10-6. The effluent limitation for 2,3,7,8 TCDD required in this permit
is established based on existing North Carolina water quality standards
and EPA's water quality criterion at a risk level of 10-6.
The effluent limitation for 2,3,7,8 TCDD is subject to change pending
final adoption of revised water quality standards by the NCEMC and approval
of these revisions by EPA.
9. If an analysis for a given sample results in a measurement of "less than
the detection level", a value of zero will be used for that sample in
calculating an average arithmetic effluent value for that parameter.

B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Part I
Page I-6
Permit No. NC0000272
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
a. The effluent limitations on Page I-2 for flow, total suspended solids,
effluent toxicity, true color, 2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
and chloroform shall become effective in accordance with the following
schedule:
Date Required Action
(1) Effective Date + 6 months Status Report
(2) Effective Date + 1 year Status Report
(3) Effective Date + 18 months Status Report
(4) Effective Date + 2 years Status Report
(5) Effective Date + 30 months Status Report
(6) June 4, 1992 Achieve compliance with the
effluent limit on Page I-2
for 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin
(7) Effective Date + 3 years
Achieve compliance with
effluent limits on Page I-2
for flow, total suspended solids,
effluent toxicity, chloroform,
and color
b. The effluent limitations for all other parameters shall become
effective upon the effective date of this permit.
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the
above schedule of conpliance, the permittee shall submit either a
report of progress or in the case of specific actions being required
by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance.
In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of nonccn pliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next
scheduled requirement.

Part II
Page II-1
Part II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Duty to Complv
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds
for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance,
or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
Any person who violates a permit condition is subject to a civil penalty
not to exceed $25,000 per day of such violation. Any person who willfully
violates permit conditions is subject to a fine of not less than $5000 nor
more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more
than 3 years, or both. Any person who negligently violates permit
conditions is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than
$25,000 per day of violation,. or by imprisonment for not more than 1 years
or both.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any
discharge in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the environment.
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified,
terminated, or revoked for cause including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts;
C. A change ' in any conditions that requires either temporary
interruption or elimination of the permitted discharge; or
d. Information newly acquired by the Agency indicating the discharge
poses a threat to human health or the environment.
•
I
Part II
Page II-2
If the permittee believes that any past or planned activity would be cause
for modification or revocation and reissuance under 40 CFR 122.62, the
permittee must report such information to the Permit Issuing Authority.
The submittal of a new application may be required of the permittee. The
filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation
and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Paragraph A-4, above, if a toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such
effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a) of
the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and such
standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation of such
pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be modified or revoked and
reissued to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the
permittee so notified.
6. Civil and Criminal Liabilit
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" Section B, Paragraph
B-3, and "Upsets" Section B, Paragraph B-4, nothing in this permit shall be
construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for
noncompliance.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to
any legal action or relieve the permittee
liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee
Section 311 of the Act.
8. State Laws
preclude the institution of
from any responsibilities,
is or may be subject under
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law
or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Act.
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any
sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to
private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement
of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.
? .
Part II
Page II-3
10. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore
or offshore physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any
work in any waters of the United States.
11. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this
permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected
thereby.
12. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a
reasonable time, any information which the Permit Issuing Authority may
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this
permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority
upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
SECTION n a OPERATION - POLLUTION AND. MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS - -
Et.llVlr
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes
adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures.
This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or
similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation
is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee
would have been necessary to halt or reduce
to maintain compliance with the condition of
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
in an enforcement action that it
the permitted activity in order
this permit.
(1) "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams
from any portion of a treatment facility, which is not a
designed or established operating mode for the facility.
r,
Part II
Page II-4
(2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes
them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss
of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to
occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage
does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause
effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for
essential ' maintenance to assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Paragraphs c. and d.
of this section.
c. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the
need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible
at least ten days before the date of the bypass; including an
evaluation of the anticipated quality and effect of the
bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of
an unanticipated bypass as required in Section D, Paragraph
D-8 (24-hour notice).
d. Prohibition of bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may
take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass,
unless:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, or severe property damage;
(b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such
as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal
periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not
satisfied in adequate backup equipment should have been
installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering
judgement to prevent a bypass which occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance; and
(c) The permittee submitted notices as required under
Paragraph c. of this section.

Part II
Page II-5
(2) The Permit Issuing Authority may approve an anticipated
bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the Permit
Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the three
conditions listed above in Paragraph d.(1) of this section.
4. Upsets
"Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations
because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An
upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational
error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation. An upset constitutes an
affirmative defense to an action brought for non-compliance with such
technology based permit limitation if the requirements of 40 CFR
122.41(n)(3) are met.
5. Removed Substances
This permit does not authorize discharge of solids, sludge, filter
backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control
of wastewaters of the United States unless specifically limited in Part 1.
SECTION C. MONITORINGAND RECORDS
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. All samples shall be
taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other
wastestream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be
changed without notification to and the approval of the Permit Issuing
Authority.
i
Part II
Page II-6
2. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted
scientific practices shall be selected and used to insure the accuracy and
reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to insure that the
accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted capability of
that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows
with a maximum deviation of less than + 10% from the true discharge rates
throughout the range of expected discharge volumes. Once-through condenser
cooling water flow which is monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as
specified in Part I of this permit and based on the manufacture's pump
curves shall not be subject to this requirement. Guidance in
selection,installation, calibration, and operation of acceptable flow
measurement devices can be obtained from the following references:
(1) "A Guide of Methods and Standards for the Measurement of Water
Flow", U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
NBS Special Publication 421, May 1975, 97 pp. (Available from the
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Order by
SD catalog No. C13.10:421.)
(2) "Water Measurement Manual", U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Second Edition, Revised Reprint, 1974, 327 pp.
(Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402. Order by catalog No. 127.19/2:W29/2, Stock No. SIN
24003-0027.)
(3) "Flow Measurement in Open Channels and Closed Conduits", U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS Special
Publication 484, October 1977, 982 pp. (Available in paper copy or
microfiche from National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
Springfield, VA 22151. Order by NTIS No.PB-273 535/5ST.)
(4) "NPDES Compliance Flow Measurement Manual", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Publication
MCD-77, September 1981, 135 pp. (Available from the General
Services Administration (8BRC), Centralized Mailing Lists
Services, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80255.)
3. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40
CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this
permit.
? a
Part II
Page II-7
4. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with,
or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 6 months per violation, or both.
5. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including
all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart
recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports
required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the
application for this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from the date
of the sample, measurement, report, or application. This period may be
extended by the Permit Issuing Authority at any time.
6. Record Contents
Records of monitoring information shall include:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed thesampling of measurements;
C. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
7. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Permit Issuing Authority, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as
may be required by law, to;
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept
under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
must be kept under the conditions of this permit.
r K

Part II
Page II-8
C. Inspect at reasonable time any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations
regulated or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean
Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
SECTION D. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
The permittee shall give notice to the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as
possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of
the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source;
or
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature
or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This
notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification
requirements under Section D, Paragraph D-10(a).-
2. AnticiRated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Permit Issuing Authority of
any planned change in the permitted facility or activity which may result
in noncompliance with permit requirements. Any maintenance of facilities,
which might necessitate unavoidable interuption of operation and
degradation of effluent quality, shall be scheduled during noncritical
water quality periods and carried out in a manner approved by the Permit
Issuing Authority.
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be automatically transferred to another if:
a. The permittee notifies the Permit
proposed transfer at least 30 days
transfer date;
b. The notice includes a written agreemi
new permittees containing a specific
responsibility, coverage, and liability
Issuing Authority of the
in advance of the proposed
snt between the existing and
date for transfer of permit
between them; and
s
Part II
Page II-9
C. The Permit Issuing
permittee of his or her
permit. If this notice
on the date specified in
Authority does not notify the existing
r intent to modify or revoke and reissue the
is not received, the transfer is effective
the agreement mentioned in paragraph b.
4. Monitoring Reports
See Part III of this permit.
5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by
this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136 or as
specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included
in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR). Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
6. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for limitations which require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the Permit Issuing
Authority in the permit.
7. Compliance Schedules
Reports of compliance 'or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on,.
interim and final requirements contained`in any compliance schedule of this
permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule
date. Any reports of noncompliance shall include the cause of
noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the probability o-E meeting
the next scheduled requirement.
8. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
The permittee shall orally report any noncompliance which may endanger
health or the environment, within 24 hours from the time the permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the
noncompliance and its cause, the period of noncompliance, including the
exact dates and times; and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the
anticipated time it is expected to continue, and steps taken or planned to
reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurance of the noncompliance. The
Permit Issuing Authority may verbally waive the written report, on a
case-by-case basis, when the oral report is made.

Part II
Page II-10
The following violations shall be included in the 24 hour report when they
might endanger health or the environment:
a. An unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in
the permit.
b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.
9. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report in narrative form, all instances of
noncompliance not previously reported under Section D, Paragraphs D-2,
D-41 D-7, and D-8 at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The
reports shall contain the information listed in Paragraph D-8.
10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
The permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows
or has reason to believe:
a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in
the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic
pollutant (listed at 40 CFR 122, Appendix D, Table II and III)
which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following "notification levels":
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter-'(100 ug/1);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/1) for acrolein and
acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug) for
2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/1) for antimony; or
(3) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for
that pollutant(s) in the application.
b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in
any discharge, on a routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic
pollutant (listed at 40 CFR 122, Appendix D. Table II and III)
which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following "notification levels":
(1) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/1);
(2) One milligram per liter (1 mg/1) for antimony; or
(3) Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for
that pollutant(s) in the permit application.

a

Part II
Page II-11
11. Duty to Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit
after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and
obtain. a new permit. The application should be submitted at least 180 days
before the expiration date of this permit. The Permit Issuing Authority
may grant permission to submit an application less than 180 days in advance
but not later than the permit expiration date.
Where EPA is the Permit Issuing Authority, the terms and conditions of this
permit are automatically continued in accordance with 40 CFR 122.6, only
where the permittee has submitted a timely and complete application for a
renewal permit and the Permit Issuing Authority is unable through no fault
of the permittee to issue a new permit before the expiration date.
12. Signato ry Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing
Authority shall be signed and certified.
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For
the purpose of this Section, a responsible corporate officer
means: (1) a president, secretary, treasurer, or
vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal
business function, or any-other person who `performs similar...
policy or decision-making functions for the corporation, or
(2) the manager of one or more manufacturing production
facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross
annual sales or expenditures exceeding 25 million (in second
quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has
been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with
corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general
partner or the proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency:
by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected
official.
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested
by the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed by a person
described above or by a duly authorized representative of that
person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described
above;

•

Part II
Page II-12
(2) The authorization specifies either an individual or a
position having responsibility for the overall operation of
the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position.); and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing
Authority.
C. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs (a)
or (b) of this section shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,.and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting false information, including the possibility.
of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
13. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all
reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be
available for public inspection at the offices of the Permit Issuing
Authority. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and
effluent data shall not be considered confidential.
14. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false
material statement, representation, or certification in any record or other
document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit,
including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance, or
who knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring
device or method required to be maintained under the Clean Water Act,
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or
by imprisonment,for not more than 2 years, or both.

6
Part II
Page II-13
SECTION E. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region IV or his designee, unless at some
time in the future the State receives authority to administer the NPDES
program and assumes jurisdiction over the permit; at which time, the
Director of the State program receiving the authorization becomes the
issuing authority.
2. Act
"Act" means the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act) Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217
and Public Law 95-576, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
3. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "average monthly discharge" is defined and the total mass of
all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
month on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided
by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during
such month. It is therefore, and arithmetic mean found by adding
the weights of the pollutant found each day of the month and then
dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were reported.
The limitation is identified as "Daily Average" or "Monthly
Average" in Part I of the permit and the average monthly discharge
value is reported in the "Average" column under "Quantity" on the
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).
b. The "average weekly discharge" is defined as the total mass of all
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during the calendar week
on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the
number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such
week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the
weights of pollutants found each day of the week and then dividing
this sum by the number of days the tests were reported. This
limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" in Part I of the
permit and the average weekly discharge value is reported in the
"Maximum" column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
C. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. If only one sample is
taken during any calendar day the weight of pollutant calculated
from it is the "maximum daily discharge". This limitation is
identified as "Daily Maximum", in Part I of the permit and the
highest such value recorded during the reporting period is
reported in the "Maximum" column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
«.

Part II
Page II-14
d. The "average annual discharge" is a rolling average equal to the
arithmetic mean of the mass measured in all discharges sampled
and/or measured during consecutive reporting periods which
comprise one year. For parameters that are measured at least once
per month, the annual average shall be computed at the end of each
month and is equal to the arithmetic mean of the monthly average
of the month being reported and the monthly average of each of the
previous eleven months. This limitation is defined as "Annual
Average" in Part I of the permit and the average annual discharge
value is reported in the "Average" column under "Quantity" on the
DMR.
4. Concentration Measurements
a. The "average monthly concentration", other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is the sum of the concentrations of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured, divided by the number of
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such month
(arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily
concentration value is equal to the concentration of a composite
sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean
(weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during that
calendar day. This limitation is identified as "Monthly Average"
or "Daily Average" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit
and the average monthly concentration value is reported under the
"Average" column under-'"Quality" of the DMR.'
b. The "average weekly concentration", other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is the sum of the concentrations of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a calendar week on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of daily
discharges sampled and/or measured during such week (arithmetic
mean of the daily concentration values). The daily concentration
value is equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in
the the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by
flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar
day. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" under
"Other Limits" in Part I of the permit and the average weekly
concentration value is reported under the "Maximum" column under
"Quality" on the DMR.
M
0
Part II
Page II-15
C. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration, of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. It is identified as
"Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit and
the highest such value recorded during the reporting period is
reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on the DMR.
d. The "average annual concentration", other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is a rolling average equal to the arithmetic mean of the
effluent or influent samples collected during consecutive
reporting periods which comprise one year. For parameters that
are measured at least once per month, the annual average shall be
computed at the end of each month and is equal to the arithmetic
mean of the monthly average of the month being reported and the
monthly average of each of the previous eleven months. This
limitation is identified as "Annual Average" under "Other Limits"
in Part I of the permit and the average annual concentration value
is reported under the "Average" column under "Quality" on the DMR.
5. Other Measurements
a. The effluent flow expressed as million gallons per day (MGD) is
the 24 hour average flow averaged monthly. It is the arithmetic
mean of the total daily flows recorded during the calendar month.
Where monitoring requirements for flow are specified in Part I of
the permit the flow rate values are reported in the "Average"
column under "Quantity." on the.DMR.
b. An instantaneous flow measurement" is a measure of flow taken at
the time of sampling, when both the sample and flow will be
representative of the total discharge.
C. Where monitoring requirements for pH, dissolved oxygen or fecal
coliform bacteria are specified in Part I of the permit, the
values are generally reported in the "Quality or Concentration"
column on the DMR.
d. The "average annual discharge" for fecal coliform bacteria shall
be calculated in the same manner as that for mass limitations (see
item II.E.3.d.).

Part II
Page II-16
6.
Types of Samples
a. Composite Sample: A "composite sample" is a combination of not
less than 8 influent or effluent portions, of at least 100 ml,
collected over the full time period specified in Part I.A. The
composite sample must be flow proportioned by either time interval
between each aliquot or by volume as it relates to effluent flow
at the time of sampling or total flow since collection of the
previous aliquot. Aliquots may be collected manually or
automatically.
b. Grab Sample: A "grab sample" is a single influent or effluent
portion which is not a composite sample. The sample(s) shall be
collected at the period(s) most representative of the total
discharge.
7. Calculation of Means
a. Arithmetic Mean: The "arithmetic mean" of any set of values is
the summation of the individual values divided by the number of
individual values.
b. Geometric Mean: The "geometric mean" of any set of values is the
N root of the product of the individual values where N is
equal to the number of individual values. The geometric' .mean is
equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms
of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the
geometric mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one
M-
C. Weighted "by Flow Value: "Weighted by flow value" means the
summation of each concentration times its respective flow divided
by the summation of the respective flows.
8. Calendar Day
A "calendar day" is defined as the period from midnight of one day until
midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of this permit, any
consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may
be used for sampling.
9. Hazardous Substance
A "hazardous substance" means any substance designated under 40 CFR Part
116 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
10. Toxic Pollutants
A "toxic pollutant" is any pollutant listed as toxic under Section
307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.

PART III
Page III-1
Permit No. N00000272
PART III
MEER REQUIREMENTS
A. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Unless otherwise specified, monitoring results obtained each calendar month
must be summarized for that month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring
Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), postmarked no later than the 28th day of the
month following the completed calendar month. (For example, data for January
shall be submitted by February 28.) Monitoring results for chloro-dibenzo
dioxins and furans and toxicity testing results shall be reported within 60
days of sample collection and attached to and submitted with the Discharge
Monitoring Report for the following month. Duplicate signed copies of these,
and all other reports required by Section D of Part II, Reporting Requirements,
shall be submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority at the following address:
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Facilities Performance Branch
water management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
B. Reopener Clause
This permit shall be modified, or alternatively revoked and reissued, to comply
with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued or approved under
Sections 301(b)(2)(C), and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act,
if the effluent standard or limitation so issued or approved:
1. Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than any
effluent limitation in the permit; or
2. Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.
The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any
other requirements of the Act then applicable.
The permit may be modified to comply with the results of future water quality
studies of dissolved oxygen levels in the Pigeon River.
If, based upon an appropriate amount of instream true color data, it is
demonstrated that the equation in Part I.A.5(a)(3) does not adequately
predict color levels at the North Carolina/Tennessee state line, the equation
shall be adjusted to make it more accurate and this permit modified accordingly.
w
4
r
PART III
Page III-2
Permit No. NC0000272
The permit will be opened to adjust the effluent limitation for 2,3,7,8 TCDD
if North Carolina water quality standards are adopted by the State of North
Carolina and approved by EPA which contain a numeric criterion for 2,3,7,8
TCDD which differs from the value presently proposed by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission (0.014 picograms per liter).
Also, the permit may be reopened to adjust the limitation for 2,3,7,8 TODD if:
(1) additional data or facts related to the criteria for dioxin become avail-
able, (2) major advances in analytical techniques occur, or (3) site specific
ambient environmental data or any other relevant information becomes available.
The conditions and limitations of this permit are predicated upon Champion's
proposed reconfiguration, including oxygen delignification.
C. Special Conditions
1. In accordance with Part I of this permit, the permittee shall initiate
the series of tests described below within 90 days of the effective date
of this permit to evaluate wastewater toxicity of the discharge from
outfall 001.
a. The permittee shall conduct a..7-Day _Cerodaphnia Survival and
Reproduction Test and a 7-Day Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Larval Survival and Growth Test on samples of final effluent. Toxicity
will be demonstrated if the no observable effect level (NOEL) is less
than 85%. For each pair of-tests conducted, at least three different
24-hour composite samples of final effluent should be collected and
used. All test solutions shall be changed daily. If, in any control,
more than 20% of the test organisms die in 7 days, that test (control
and effluent) shall be repeated. Such testing will determine whether
the effluent affects the survival, reproduction, and/or growth of the
test organisms.
b. For the first three years of this permit, toxicity testing will be
required once every six months. In the year following the effective
date of the limitation for effluent toxicity, toxicity testing will
be required six times per year at two month intervals. After the
first year of testing following the effective date of the limitation
for effluent toxicity, toxicity testing will be required once every
six months.
Results shall be reported according to EPA/600/4-85/014, Section 10,
Report Preparation, and shall be submitted to EPA with the monthly
discharge monitoring report. If any one test indicates that the NOEL
is less than 85%, another chronic toxicity test using the specified
methodology and the same test species shall be conducted within 2
weeks.
Ir
•
PART III
Page III-3
Permit No. NC0000272
2. The permittee is required to operate oxygen injection facilities at the
outfall structure, at 0.9 miles downstream of the discharge, and at 2.1
miles downstream of the discharge. These facilities shall be operated in
a manner which will maintain the water quality standard for dissolved
oxygen in the Pigeon River downstream of the discharge.
The permittee shall monitor the Pigeon River at six locations downstream
of the discharge. The locations of instream monitoring stations (show as
miles upstream of the confluence with the French Broad River) are listed
below:
River Mile
62.9
57.7
55.5
53.5
48.2
42.6
Monitoring requirements for this sampling program are specified below:.
a) Sampling for dissolved oxygen and temperature shall be conducted once
per week for all stations. A minimum of two samples shall be collected
for dissolved oxygen and temperature at each station for each day that
samples are collected. The sample type for instream dissolved oxygen
and temperature monitoring is "grab."
b) Monitoring for five day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) shall be
conducted once per week for all stations. The sample type for instream
BOD5 samples is "grab."
c) Average daily flows shall be measured at river mile 55.5.
Limitations to measure oearpliance with the requirements of this special
condition are as follows:
The average daily dissolved oxygen concentration measured at river mile
62.9, 57.7, and 55.5 shall not be less than 5.0 mg/1 and the instantaneous
minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 4.0 mg/1.
3. Within 60 days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall submit a study plan to EPA to further evaluate the levels of
chloroform in the effluent and the fate of chloroform in the Pigeon River
downstream of the discharge. The EPA will review the study plan within
thirty days of its receipt and, upon approval, the study plan will become
an enforceable part of this permit.
i ?
PART III
Page III-4
Permit No. N00000272
4. Within 90 days of the effective date of this permit, the discharger will
submit a proposal to operate the upstream reservoir in order to provide
the maximum possible dilution during naturally low streamflow periods.
After review and comment by EPA and acceptance by EPA and the discharger,
the terms of the reservoir operation scheme may become a part of this
permit after permit modification.

PART IV
Page IV-1
Permit No. N00000272
A. Dioxin Monitoring Conditions
In addition to the effluent limitations specified in Part I of this
permit, the permittee is required to monitor once per quarter for all
chloro-dibenzo dioxins and furans listed in the below table, at the
following locations:
1. Influent to wastewater treatment facility
2. Sludge
3. Landfill leachate
4. Final effluent
The method of analysis for each sample shall be the appropriate method of
analysis specified in Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance for
Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-dioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by High-Resolution Gas Chromatography/
High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry, EPA, 1987, (EPA Method 8290), or
another equivalent analytical protocol approved by EPA. For each sampling
period, the limit of detection shall be reported for each sample analyzed.
These samples shall be analyzed and reported for all isomers of chloro-
dibenzo dioxins and furans and also reported as toxicity equivalents
(TEQ) based on the relative toxic equivalence factors listed below:
CDD/CDF ISOMERS OF MOST TOXIC CONCERNa
DIOXIN DIBENZOFURAN
Isomer TEFb Isomer TEFb
2,3,7,8-TODD 1 2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.5 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.04 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.01
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.04 1,2,3,7,8,9-hxCDF 0.01
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.01
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.04 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.01
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.001 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.001
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.001
a/ In each homologous group the relative toxicity factor for the isomers
not listed is 1/100 of the value listed above.
b/ TEF = toxic equivalence factor = relative toxicity assigned.

. 4
PART IV
Page IV-2
Permit No. N00000272
B. Fish Tissue Tests
In addition, the permittee shall develop a Plan of Study to assess the
levels of all chloro-dibenzo dioxins and furans in ambient fish tissues
downstream of the discharge annually. Fish will be sampled fran both the
Pigeon River between the discharge and Waterville Reservoir and from
Waterville Reservoir. The permittee shall submit the Plan of Study to
EPA within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this permit. The EPA
will review the Plan of Study within thirty (30) days of its receipt and,
upon approval, the Plan of Study will became an enforceable part of this
permit. Monitoring shall commence in accordance with the approved Plan
of Study. These samples shall be analyzed and reported for all isomers of
chloro-dibenzo dioxins and furans and also reported as toxicity equivalents
(TEQ) based on the relative toxic equivalence factors in the table in
Part IV(A) of this permit.
The method of analysis for these samples shall be the appropriate method
of analysis specified in Part IV A.
C. Chlorine Minimization Program
1. Within 30 days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall conduct a 72-hour coposite sampling program of the following
points at each bleach` line for the purpose of establishing the rates
of formation of 2,3,7,8-TODD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (lbs/ton of air-dried
brownstock pulp) with current bleaching practice:
Pulps
a. Brownstock pulp fed to first stage chlorination.
b. Fully bleached pulp after last bleaching stage.
Wastewaters
a. Combined bleach plant wastewaters exclusive of noncontact cooling
waters, process wastewaters from pulping, chemical recovery, paper
machines, utilities or other nonbleach plant sources to the extent
possible.
b. As an alternative to sampling combined bleach plant wastewaters,
individual bleach and extraction filtrates and all other bleach
plant wastewaters shall be individually sampled for the 72-hour
sampling period including any chemical oxidation wastewaters. The
permittee may analyze each filtrate separately or prepare a flow-
weighted composite sample of filtrates and other bleach plant
wastewaters for analyses, insuring that the composite sample is
representative in terms of flaw and composition of each wastewater.

40 PART IV
Page IV-3
Permit No. NC0000272
2. The permittee shall retain all bleach plant operating logs for the
period beginning 24 hours prior to initiation of sampling and lasting
until 24 hours after completion of sampling. A minimum of 24 grab
samples shall be taken at approximate equaltime intervals to make up
each 72-hour composite sample.
3. The samples shall be analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in
accordance with the analytical protocol set out in Analytical Proce-
dures and Quality Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated
Dibenzo-para-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by High-Resolution
Gas Chromatography/High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry, EPA, 1987, (EPA
Method 8290), or another equivalent analytical protocol approved by
EPA.
4. Within 90 days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall submit a report including the results of the sampling program,
the rates of formation of 2,3,7,8-TODD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and a descrip-
tion of the bleaching practice followed (e.g., all chemical additions
in lbs/ton of air-dried brownstock pulp, Kappa number, CEK, and all
data necessary to compute the Kappa number or chlorine ratio).
5. Beginning 30.days after the effective date of this pezmit.,and.lasting
for 120 days, the permittee shall review bleach plant operating
practices and develop operating practices to minimize, to the maximum
extent practicable without compromising product specifications, the
use of elemental chlorine for pulp bleaching. Operating practices
may include control of chlorine application, greater substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine where possible, improved mixing of
bleach chemicals, and other operating practices which would result in
lower chlorine use.
6. Within 150 days after the effective date of this permit and lasting
until the expiration date, the permittee shall implement those practices
that are feasible. Within 180 days fran the effective date of this
permit, the permittee shall submit a report describing the results of
the chlorine minimization efforts.
7. Within 210 days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall conduct a second bleach plant monitoring program (See paragraphs
1 to 4 above). The permittee shall submit a report of that monitoring
program not later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit.
8. Beginning 12 months after the effective date of this permit and
continuing at six-months intervals, the permittee shall submit a
report describing any further actions it has taken to minimize chlorine
use in pulp bleaching including, but not limited to, changes in
operating practices, process modifications, and process substitutions.
w
It

PART IV
Page IV-4
Permit No. N00000272
9. Based upon the results of this program, the permitting authority may
reopen this permit for modification, as appropriate.
D. Effluent Suspended Solids Minimization Program
1. Within 30 days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall initiate laboratory scale screening studies for the purpose of
determining what coagulants, polymers, or other materials or additives,
may be most effective for minimizing the discharge of total suspended
solids frcm the final effluent. The testing shall be conducted on
samples of plant influent and bioloigical treatment system system
effluent (aeration basin) prior to addition of any treatment chemicals
and prior to settling in secondary clarifiers. The testing shall
include as a control a gravity settled sample from the primary and
secondary clarifier including any treatment chemicals currently used
at dosages reflecting current practice.
2. Within 30 days after the effective date of this permit, the pezmittee
shall obtain during the same 72-hour period composite samples of the
final effluent the biological treatment system effluent (aeration
basin) and the plant influent prior to addition of any treatment
chemicals and prior to_,settling,in secondary clarifiers as noted
above. The samples shall be analyzed for 2,3,7,8-7CDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF
in both the solid fraction (laboratory filtered) and the liquid fraction
in accordance with the analytical protocol set out in Analytical Pro-
cedures and Quality Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated
Dibenzo-para-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans by High-Resolution
Gas Chromatography/High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry, EPA, 1987, (EPA
Method 8290), or an equivalent analytical protocol approved by USEPA.
The final effluent sample 2,3,7,8-TODD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF analytical
results shall be reported on a total sample basis (i.e., separate
extraction of solid and liquid fractions, but analysis of ccmbined
extracts in accordance with the above analytical protocol).
3. Within 60 days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall report the results of the laboratory-scale screening studies
and the analyses of the above sampling for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
The permittee shall also submit a study plan for pilot plant or full-
scale verification of the laboratory-scale screening study.
4. Within 75 days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall initiate pilot-scale or full-scale total suspended solids
wastewater treatability studies for the purpose of validating the
results of the laboratory-scale screening studies. If pilot-scale
treatability studies are conducted, the studies shall be conducted at
a scale that would permit implementation of the results on a full-scale
basis.

PART IV
Page IV-5
Permit No. N00000272
5. Within 150-days after the effective date of this permit, the permittee
shall submit a report of the pilot-scale or full-scale total suspended
solids wastewater treatability studies. The report shall include the
complete study results; estimates of the increased amounts (volume and
mass) of wastewater sludge generated; estimates of expected total
suspended solids effluent quality; estimates of the investment and
annual costs associated with improved suspended solids controls; and
a proposed construction schedule should additional facilities be
required.
6. Beginning 150 days after the effective date of this permit and lasting
until expiration, the permittee shall implement the most effective
interim effluent total suspended solids controls derived from the
above studies within the capability of existing wastewater treatment
and sludge dewatering facilities. Installation and operation of
chemical or other material addition facilities shall be considered
within the scope of "existing wasteater treatment," if those facilities
are not in place, or if modification of existing chemical or other
material addition facilities is required.
7. Based upon the results of this program, the permitting authority may
reopen this permit for modification, as appropriate.
E. Dioxin Control Plan
Within 60 days of the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
submit to EPA 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 implement
the suspended solids and chlorine minimization programs (See Part IV C
and Part IV D). Upon approval by the permitting authority, the DCP
implementation schedule shall become an enforceable part of the permit,
replacing the requirements in Part IV C and Part IV D.

A. Introduction
In August of 198', a fluorescent dye time-of-travel study and an intensive
water qualit.: sur, were performed in the Pigeon Ri•:er in western N.C. betwt? en
the Towns of Cantcn and hepcc. Data collected during these studies were uses to
calibrate a w--ter quality -yodel to determine a wasteload allocation for the
Ciia t1C =`.tr ..__I lC..ton. 11ne res-,ltin'_ aliccat:ion Curve Fcr a waste D.S.
r, C: t.. 4
< zc C.)r :. cOtlgina o_. o` C
S'.: .: .. ?.. c
.! 3 - .. C, n' r I 1. a- allocation
A reason able ... o:oulc re a BUDS cf 4 m-.11 and a NHi -: cence: +-
of 1 mg /l. At t..est concentrations, the D.C. of the modeled 20 icllc reach of
the Pigeon: River will not fail below 5 mg/1. if the River conditions are less'
restructive or the same as design conditions used in the model.
B. 'yodel Development
The EPA stream quality model (Q?Ah7 II) uses a combination of the hydraulic
characteristics of a stream: and the system's chemical and biological reaction
iw araulic
rates to predict in-strear.• trends in water quality parameters. The
portion of the motel. requires functions describing the relationships between
flow, VelOC_t'j . -e-t:, anC reaeratio^, (tom') . Developed tC predict measure`
Conditions in the strean., these functions theoretically adjust velocity, cepth
and K2 to chan_es in strear.: flow. Calibration of the model's ChCt:i al ra 2tEr
predictions involves adjusting oxidation rates for organic nitrogen, ammonia
nitrogen an-1 CBOD to best predict the observed in-stream decay of these substances.
Thesc rates are assumed to be independent of stream flow but vary with changing
temperatures. The calibrated Quall II model is adjusted to 7%10 low flows and
design temperatures for the final allocation calculations.
The Pigeon River hydraulic model was primarily based on data collected

iii Ap
by the N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development (\RCD) in
August of 1980. This information was supplemented by data from a 1965 report
by the Department of the Interior on a biological investigation of the Pigeon
and a 1980 N.C. Wildlife Department report by Wingate and Davies. Pigeon River
calibration flows were calculated from measured tributary discharges, self-menitorin€
data from Champion Papers and the Towns of Clyde and [Waynesville and conservative
substance mass aalances. Table 1 shows the measured tributary and waste flows
used to calibrate the model. Additional stream floc: contributed by small
tributaries and land runoff was estimated from mass balances of measured
concentrat: iCns o tcta. dissolved solids and c,lor4de at the various strew.:.
stations.
The P iFE-n R4Vr' S VUl oCltV at the time of the survey was ca_cu__az:E:: 1. 077
data collected during a fluorescent d\e time-of-travel studv on the 25 an. 26 of
August. The River's velocity changes only slightly over the twenty miles modeled
reflecting the relatively constant slope of 15 ft/mi. The average measured
velocity was 0.65 fps. Time-of-travel data from a 1965 Dept. of the Interior
study of the,Pigeon River was combined with the 1980 data to develop a power
function relationship between velocity and flow. Between 1965 and 1980, the
introduction of secondary waste treatment at the Champion Plant has changed the
water quality of the Pigeon River considerably. Despite these improvements in
water quality, the flow-velocity relationships measured in the two studies were
reasonably consistent. The constant velocity of 0.76 fps measured in 1965
reflected flows se.newi;at greater than those measured in 1980. The two sets
of data were combined to calculate the velocity power equation;
V = 0.143 Q(0.310)
The reaeration constant (K2) for the Pigeon model was calculated using
Owen's relationship between K2, velocity and depth;
K2 = 2.31 (9.1`1 (Velocity) 0.67 /(depth) 1.85 )
Cross sectional arecs between stations were estimated from velocity and flow data.
These were co:----2EC. w t., dths measured for a 196r, iilldiilE Stlld. O: t}.E
:_ver's fisheries -,c cLiculate average depths aiCnC he Odelt.d read:. ;,e reSultln
. ie w
-3-
K2 of 2.01 day-1 was assumed to be constant for the entire model.
A relationship between depth and river flow was calculated with the
following relationships:
Q = A
% A Wxd
d = 1/;v (Q)
d = 0.026 Q
Where: `: = average river velocity
Q = average river flow
A = average cross-sectional area
V = average width
d = average depth
Temper
from 33°C at
three design
for miles 1
atures measured in the Pigeon
the outfall to about 25°C at
temperatures were employed:
.c to 1J•9 and 25°C for miles
during the intensive survey ranged
the downstream stations. Therefore,
31°C for miles 21.0 to 17.9, 28°C
15.9 to 0.
Decay rates for organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and CBOD (Ki) were
developed using average chemical concentrations measured at each station
(Table 2). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were corrected to the design
temperatures using an analysis based on percent saturation. The decay of all
modeled constituents was assumed to follow first order kinetics. Rate constants
were determined by applying the X2 goodness of fit test. Chemical concentrations
measured at the river stations were compared to concentrations predicted by the
Quall II model with various reaction rates. The rate of organic nitrogen decay
was determined first, since its decay produces ammonia and thus directly affects
the ammonia decay rate. The best fit organic nitrogen rate was then incorporated
into the model and a best fit rate for ammonia decay was determined. Finally, a
decay rate for C30D was found by fitting the rate to the dissolved oxygen data.

-4-
CBOD concentrations in the stream are affected by numerous reactions. The
Kl rate theoretically reflects CBOD oxidation rates. However, settling and
resuspension of bottom sediments also remove and replace CBOD in the overlying
water and influence the oxygen demand of CBOD. A rate fitted to dissolved
oxygen data incorporates these complex interactions and models the stream
system as a whole.
Calibration of the Pigeon River model produced the following rate
constants:
0.17 da;; 1
1
K, = 2.01 dati-1
-
hOr?-\ = 3.0 day- 1
KNH3 = 0.8 day-1
The results of the calibrated model are illustrated in Figures 1-5. The
solid line shows the constituent concentrations predicted by the model. The
three crosses correspond to the measured maximum, average and minimum
concentration at each station. The scatter in the organic nitrogen data
(Figure 1) made accurate fitting difficult. The pictured calibration shows
the decrease in organic nitrogen concentration caused solely by dilution..
Ammonia nitrogen (Figure 2) decayed smoothy with travel down the Pigeon River.
A decay rate of 0.8 day-1 fit the data well. Although high for most systems,
this rate seems reasonable for the Pigeon River. The warm, turbulent, riffled
reaches of the river provide an excellent environment for nitrifying bacteria.
The metabolisn of these organisms is primarily responsible for the decay
ammonia in aquatic systems. Oxidized nitrogen (N02 + N03) is produced from
the oxidation of ammonia. The calibrated model (Figure 3) underestimated
the measured concentrations of nitrite and nitrate for most of the river. This
is probably due to additional runoff input to the river not accounted for in
the model. Although the CBCD oxidation was fitted to dissolved oxygen data,
the resulting predictions (Figures 4 & 5) fit the measured data well.
C. Allocation
The calibrated model was adjusted to 7/10 flows for the allocation
determinations. USGS data was used to calculate 7/10 flows on the Pigeon and
all the mL.I or tributaries. Design waste flows were use,- for the Cham io.,
- e
r
-5-
Clyde and Waynesville i;astewater Treatment Plants. Allocation flows are
included in Table 1.
Wasteload allocation calculations are routinely made at a calculated
design temperature. The design temperature calculated for Champion Papers
was 22oC (71.60F). However, the elevated temperature measured in the Pigeon
below the Champion outfall are produced by the plant's heated discharge. T*_
seemed unreasonable to adjust the model to a calculated temperature never
seen in the river. The calibration model temperatures were therefore used
for the allocation determinations.
Other boundary- conditions were estabii.shed as follows:
0
Lpstream temp. = 71.6 F
Upstream D.O. = 7.9 mg/l (90 saturation)
Upstream CBOD = 3.0 mg/l
Upstream Nh3 = 0.05
Cha.mipion waste" D.U. = 6 mg,,/l
A standard allocation procedure is employed for all Level C models..
With all boundary conditions set, the NH')-N in the waste is set equal to
zero and the CBOD concentration is varied until the resulting D.O. in the
simulated stream reach does not drop below 5 mg/1. The CBOD is then set
to zero and 'the \H3-:\' is varied until a D.O. = 5 mg/1 minimum is maintained.
The CBOD is then converted to BOD5 using the CBOD/BOD5 ratio determined for
the waste (3,65). These two points then define the allocation graph show in
Figure 6. Pnv comjination of NH3-\ and BOD5 on or below this line respresents
an acceptable allocation for Champion Paper.

Table 1. Measured Point-Source Flows for Calibration & Allocation Models
Calibration Allocation
Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs)
Source
Pigeon River upstream of Champion Paper 81.66 76.1
71.66 76.0
Champion Influent
67.11 15.17
Champion Effluent
Beaverdam. Creek 2.73 1.39
0.70 0.36
Thichety Creek
0.21 .198
Clvde 1,AN77TTP
36.60 '0 S
Richland Creek
- 4•43 9'3
IP
Waynesville hi
Crabtree Creek 6.38 3.0
Jonathans Creek 36.01 29.6
6.34 5.20
Fines Creek

a
Pigeon River
Water Quality Data
August 26 and 27, 1980
Avg. D.O. ?'c
Design Design
River Temm Temp OBOD Org-\ \H3-\ N02+NO3
Station Mile 0c mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/1 mg/1
P-1 63.31 31 6.75 2.20 0.1 0.05 0.16
P-? 633 .21 31 4.5 35.40 1.1 1.40 .05
P-4 6:.91 31 4.55 23.73 0.88 1.12 0.06
P-5 61."1 31 3.63 21.37 1.06 0.94 C,. 37
P-6 59.51 28 3.67 22.40 0.74 0.66 0.59
P-7 57.91 25 4.23 21.48 0.77 0.53 0.70
P-8 55.91 25 5.24 18.79 0.89 0.41 0.78
P-10 54.11 25 6.11 17.30 0.57 0.33 0.71
P-11 52.81 25 5.99 19.39 0.82 0.28 0.74
P-11A 50.55 25 6.28 13.82 0.72 0.21 0.78
P-12 49.11 25 6.37 13.39 0.61 0.17 0.79
P-13 43.71 25 7.36 7.20 0.57 0.13 0.57
4r

T
ro
v
0
0
x
a
c

L
ro
N

r-1
ro
U
C }
CJ

z

r
CL

y

w
+ +
+
8
+ TT
B
? V
1
f ? j I
6
.J
++ + i-
?
i
+ J t +
I
i
,OEo SE'o EL'r 052 Z5'2 oh'6 0%L7 ZZ'W Z i'iu
I --Jl '- N?nu?'! 1N INi-j-?4;-,L-
...J ..i a

ri
T
O
II
x
0
ro
sJ
U
G
N
cL
C
t.
z
!
m
0
c
E
N
0
t t1 f

1
t

4

/ I
t/? t f
t
t jF t !
i v
+
f
's
? ? lL
t ?
I
t !
T I?
t _ L-
i ?.
!
v
i.
t
I?
1-
? i
' Bir' 0c'.' i B i' t BZ'i BEE: ZTZ OLT 03'0 ZaT Ewa 0E'Z Bt. 9. 41 2
I
1.
t
w' -
G
0
i+ + +

co

Sri

U
G
O
i?
O
? t
Z t
t

O i
++ +
.
Y
,

C;

+++

#+

Y

-1 71

i
f
1 b'?
I
~
1 J

W

W

1 g

SN s._
1 •••

n

?i
4?

i
i ?
1
k?
r
(s
xs
1
i
F ?.
a
L'
tr
i
u:
w
W
T
?r
?l
t'
7 S t 1^
t ? t
1
t
1
t +/!
1
t t +
+ +
C
0
,n
Gi
t:
CIC
f .

o

'- H

J
C
1-
?.L
7
{ f

C
1

r

1 . :L

t f i _...

Y

1?. T -•
a

r
1 Li

I

v
r *Ao
a ._
6
it
O
Q
C
C..
G
.J
L/
y
L
6

n

' i?
l..
r

r'}

J

L:
? I
o\,jeo S74
+ ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
;Fryrq(aaolll:\,? REGION 1V
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365

PArT QPPPT
Application No:
APPLICATION FOR
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION: SYSTEM;
PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TREATED WASTEWATER
TO U.S. WATERS
NC0000272
MAR 1 5 '969
Date:
1. SYNOPSIS OF APPLICATION:
a. Name and Address of Applicant
Champion International Corporation
Champion Papers Division
Main Street
Canton, Haywood County, North Carolina 28716
b. Type of Facility
Intecrated bleached Kraft pulp and paper manufacturing facility
producing food board and fine paper.
c. 304(1) - Individual Control Strategy (ICS)
In addition to this document servinc as a permit reissuance, it will
also serve as the ICS for the Champion International Corporation -
Canton Mill. As required by Section 304(1) of the 1987 amendments to
the Clean, Water Act, the State of North Carolina has sutx-ittec, to EP",
a list of waters wick do not meet State water quality standards, due
entirely or substantially to point source dischargers of Section
307(a) toxic pollutants. The State also submitted a list of those
specific point source dischargers and the 307(a) toxic pollutant
causinc violations of State water quality standards. The final list
of discharaers for the State of North Carolina includes the Canton
Mill with the cause of such listing as 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-
dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD). The proposed draft peyr,.it includes an effluent
limitation for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and additional requirements to reduce the
amount of dioxin discharged from this facility. A discussion of the
development of the effluent limit for 2,3,7,8 TODD is riven in the
discussion of "Faris for Final Effluent Limits and Pe,-.,,it Cor.-,- it ions"
in Part 3 of this 'Fact Sheet.
• 0,1 ...

d. Production Capacity of Facility
PRESENT OPERATION (January - December 1984)
694 tons per day BvT bleached Kraft
1013 tons per day fine bleached Kraft
FUTURE MODIFICATION (estimated)
1100 tons per day LCT bleached Kraft
500 tons per day fine bleached Kraft
e. Applicant's Receiving Water
The Pigeon River
For a sketch showing the location of the discharge, see attached map.
f. Description of Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wastewater is treated by the following unit operations:
Grit removal, bar screening, pH control by C02 injection, coagulation
with po-2y-mer addition, disc screening, primary clarification, secondary
treatrnert by activated sludge, secondary clarification, and cascade
aeration wit}: oxygen addition. Domestic wastewater is chlorinate
prior to blending, with process wastewater.
- g. Description of Discharges
PRESENT OPERATION (data from April 7, 1986 application)
Serial 001 - (process wastewater and Town of Canton domestic
wastewater)
Average Flow - 44.4 MGD
Average Winter Temperature - 30.0°C
Average Summer Temperature - 36.20C
pH Range (std. units) - 6.6 - 8.5
• ,,. %n •
Pollutants which are present in significant quantities or which are
subject to effluent limitation are as follows:
Effluent Characteristic Reported Values
(from application - April 7, 1986)
Daily Average Daily Maximum
RDD5 14.4 mg/l 84.6 mg/l
TSS 19,130 lbs/day 47,986 lbs/day
Fecal Colifor-m 87/100 ird 640/100 ml
COD 266 mg/l 460 mg/1
Arrnonia 2.17 rig/l 9.8 mg/1
True Color 782 std. units 1385 std. units
2,4,6 Trichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Zinc (one sample)
Chloroform (one sample)
2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,6 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-furan
Less than 10
Less than 10
80
86.3
Not Detected
Not Detected
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l*
at 18 pp c**
at 24 ppg**
* Analysis of 12 effluent samples collected by the permittee for the
period of February 11 through February 21, 1987 gave an average
effluent chloroforr^ concentration of 350 ug/l and a daily maximum
value of 480 uc/l.
** Analysis of one composite sample collected on May 2, 1988.
FUTURE MODIFICATION
Champion has developed a proposed plan to down-size existing production
capacity and to incorporate oxygen delignification in the pulp digestion
process. The net effect of these proposed modifications would reduce
the total effluent flow to approximately 29 mgd. Also, the charac-
teristics of the influent to the wastewater treatment facility and
the treatment efficiencies for various wastewater parameters will be
altered. Therefore, when the proposed modifications are implemented,
the above description of discharges will not be accurate for somie
parameters.
2. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
cA•-;ai nni
See attached Parts I and III of the draft NPDES permit.
M - •
3. EASIS FOR FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITS AND PERMIT CONDITIONS
This NPDES permit contains effluent limitations and monitoring recuire-
ments included in the permit issued by the State of North Carolina on
May 14, 1985, where appropriate. These requirements are included in the
NPDES permit as a result of the State of North Carolina's interpretation
of State Water Quality Standards as they apply to the Champion - Canton
Mill discharge.
The permit also includes conditions based on the requirements of the
North Carolina state water cruality certification of permit conditions
dated February 5, 1988.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS):
This parameter is addressed in effluent Guidelines developed for the BCT
Bleached Kraft Subcategory (40 CFR 430.80) and Fine Bleached Kraft Sub-
catenory (40 CFR 43C.90) of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source
Category. The production values for the Canton Mill used to determine
appropriate limitations were established based on the definition contained
in 40 CFR 430.01(a) relating to annual production. No wet ba:rkinc_ opera-
tions, loc or chip washing or log flumes or log ponds are present at the
Canton Mill.
PRESENT OPEPATIONI
Based on a review of production at the Canton Mill from January 1981 to
December 1985, the twelve month period from January 1984 to December 1984
was selected as the maximum annual production.
Guideline Factor Limits-?3jay7-=
Subcategory Production (1000 lb/day) Ave. Max. Ave. Max.
ECT Bleached Kraft 1
(430.82) 387.5 12.9 24.0 17,899 33,300
Fine Bleached Kraft 2026.5 11.9 22.15 24,115 44,887
(430.92)
Total Limitation, (through year 3 of the permit) 42,014 78,187
FUTURE MODIFICATION
The estimated maximum production capacity of the down-sized Canton Mill
was used to calculate appropriate limits for TSS for years 4 and 5 of the
permit.
Subcategory
ECT Bleached F raft
(436.82)
Fine BleacheCl Kraft
(43.92)
Guideline Factor Limits (lb/day)
Production (1000 lb/day) Ave. Max. Ave. Max.
22C!2 12.9 24.0
luou 11.9 22.1f5
Total Limitation
2f?,3PC 52,800
11,9C6 22,150

..
BODS
This parameter is addressed in effluent guidelines developed for the KT
Bleached Kraft and Fine Bleached Kraft subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Point Source Category.
PRESENT OPERATION
Guideline
Subcategory Production (1000 lb/day) Ave Factor
M Limits (lb/day)
. ax. Ave. Max.
BCT Bleached Kraft 1387.5 7.1 13.65 9851 18,939
Fine Bleached Kraft 2026.5 5.5 10.6 11,146 21,481
Total Limitation 20,997 40,420
FUTURE MODIFICATION
Guideline Factor Limits (lb/day)
Subcateeo:ni Production (1000 lb/day) Ave. Max. w.-, t;a};,
KT Bleached Kraft 2200 7.1 13.65 15,620 30,030
Fine Bleached Kraft 1000 5.5 10.6 5,500 10,600
Total Limitation 21,120 40,630
Fused on a wasteload allocation performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM), neither of the effluent guideline-based
limitations for BOD5 are sufficient to maintain the dissolved oxygen
standard fcr t'he Pigeon River. A copy of the wasteload allocation report
is included pY Attachment 1. The conclusion of the report is that effluent
limitations of 4 mg11 BDD5, 1 mg/l ammonia (expressed as nitrogen), and
6 mg/1 dissolved oxygen will maintain the water quality standard for
dissolved oxygen in the Pigeon River.
After a review of the environmental and economic impacts of meetino_ the
above water quality-based limits, the permittee has installed side strea,
oxygenation facilities which serve to elevate the dissolved oxygen levels
in the Pigeon River. These oxygenation facilities are located at points
0.9 and 2.1 miles downstream of the facility outfall. This method of
achieving water quality standards has been determined to be acceptable
based on the requirements of 40 CFP. 125.3(f):
(1) The technology-based treatment requirements applicable to the
discharge are not sufficient to achieve the standards;
(2) The discharger agrees to waive any opportunity to request a
variance under sections 301(c) or (g) of the Act; and

(3) The discharger demonstrates that such a technique is the preferred
environmental and economic method to achieve the standards after
consideration of alternatives such as advanced waste treatment,
recycle and reuse, land disposal, changes in operating methods,
and other available methods.
The requirements of this NPDES permit relative to effluent BDDS limitations,
operation of side stream oxygen injection facilities, and instream dissolved
oxygen monitoring requirements are consistent with the terms of the permit
issued by the State of North Carolina on May 14, 1985. Based on review
of available data and the demonstration by the permittee that requirements
of 40 CFR 125.3(f) have been met, EPA concurs that the proposed limitations
for BOD5 in conjunction with proper operation of the oxygenation facilities
are adequate controls for the contribution of the Champion effluent to meet
the dissolved oxygen standard for the Pigeon River.
Compliance with the requirement to operate the side stream oxygenation
facilities is measured by monitoring instreamr! dissolved oxygen levels in
the Pigeon River at stations located at mile 62.9, 57.7 and 55.5. The
locations were selected due to the possible influence from the 4aynesville
municipal wastewater treatment facility on downstream dissolved oxygen
levels.
The permit reouires that the average daily instream dissolved oxygen
levels at these stations not be less than 5 mg11 and the minimum
instantaneous instreai-, value not be less than 4 mg/1. These values are
water quality criteria listed in 15 NCAC .0211(b)(3)(B).
Based on review of the model developed by NCDEM to set the initial"effluent
limits for the Champion discharge (see above), EPA has concluded that
allocation of wasteloads for oxygen demanding parameters for the Pigeon
River should be revisited. This conclusion was reached based on the
estimate that at the 7Q10 flow, the Waynesville discharge contributes 250
of the oxygen demanding materials at the point of discharge based on
existing permitted loads. A survey of water quality (related to D.U.) in
the North Carolina segment of the Pigeon River was completed in September
1988. These results will be used during 1989 to compare to the previous
modeling efforts by NCDEM of the Pigeon river and to determine if the
wasteload allocation should be revised.
The current NPDES permit for the City of Waynesville expires on April 30,
1989. Upon completion of the ongoing water quality survey, the Waynesville
permit will be reissued and the Champion permit will be modified, if
necessary, to incorporate the results of the revised wasteload allocation.

Ammonia
An effluent limitation for aiiTmonia was established by the NCDE`1 in ,)rder
to maintain the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen in the Pigao,
River. The measure of compliance in meeting this stan:-)ard was rel)lact_:d
with the permit requirements to operate oxygenation facilities and the
permit limits for dissolved oxygen as monitored at six locations in the
Pigeon River downstream of the outfall. Monitoring requirements are
included in the permit to provide data concerning levels of ammonia
discharged to the Pigeon River.
Effluent Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
The effluent limit for D.O. is based on the previously mentioned waste-
load allocation performed by the NCDEIT4 and the requirements of the permit
issued by the State of North Carolina on I4ay 14, )985.
Instrear! Dissolved Oxygen
See disc:.ussi,yl of
Color
Champion applie.' for variances fry: 11 :iii i l >i:r1 ??t color criteria in ",Dt7t1i
Carolina and Tennessee water gu-ilitly standards. Th,, variance a? '..,_ations
were based up_-)n meeting a true c,>l.or level of v5 Platinum Cobalt cr"rlr)r
units in the T)4neon River at the North Carolina/Tennessee s -ate line.
This variance was granted by the State of N..:irth Carolina on ?ul 13,
1988, and approved by EPA on August 13, 1988. The basis of E'04's approval
of the variance was the widespread social and economic impact projected
as a result of meeting the instream criteria for color of 50 apparent
color units.
The request for a variance to Tennessee water quality standards was d,nie,
by the State of Tennessee. Therefore, the permit is written to assure
compliance wits the Tennessee water_ gdality standard for 111-or. According
to the State of Tennessee, the instream color criterion at the North
Carolina/Tennessee si=ate !Ana is 50 apparent color units (Platinum Cobalt).
The end of pine col-) limitation is expressed in terms or true color.
Base.:; a rre,7iew of vario.is factors and available data, it is believers
that the contr_i!?ution of color by Champion will be sufficiently controlle3
if tine t;i? of pipe c-)lor limitation is consistently achieved. Color (as
with other parameters such as toxicity and dissolved oxygen) is evaluate.:
at low flow conditions for purposes of effluent limit derivation and
assuring that water quality standards are maintained. Under low flow
conditions, the two measurements will be essentially the sane, i.e.,
there will be no detectable difference between true and apparent color.
Since the color Champion contributes at the Tennessee,/North Carolina
state line is almost entirely true color, and since, at low flow, Champion's
contrih,ution, of t1'u-? 10.5 0 Y of t> color , a'_' allo e-:_
-??, >r?.?
' '-'D
maintai.n t?, 7at?r rjuality ar,dard of 50 apparent (-o' )r ..,nits (du,? L
nat_1S"1l f 1;7i,7 '-)F t'1? Pigeon i:i_vari, 1t C:7 appropriate to regulate
cllcvrnt?l0'i' ", iSC1 rr',:? :7?1 thE? I)aSi7 4 1-1 ? Color. 1 t' uc' 1.t =i;:?n
has 'e 1 !):ilz_
f ?,.ii ^eS Gt'i'? t!ia`i the Cha nior) C11SCrl.?r_;
1,

Based upon information supplied by the Company and analysis by EPA, the
Company's contribution to color levels at the Tennessee/North Carolina
state line are proposed to be limited using the following equation:
SLc = (VdTPc / 8.34) + ((HEf - V• Pf) X Dc)
HE f x 10 (-0.224 x LOG (HEf) + 0.781)
Where: WTPc = Monthly average Waste Treatment Plant discharge
color - calculated as the average of all daily
loading values (expressed as pounds of true
color per day) for a calendar month
6.TPf = Monthly average Waste Treatment Plant discharge
flow (mgd)
HEf = Monthly average HEPCO, North Carolina flow (mgd) -
daily flow values lower than 81.4 mgd shall be
entered as 81.4 mgd
SLc = Instream true color at North Carolina - Tennessee
border (State line)
Dc = Color Concentration of all Dilution Streams
(13 C.U.)
Compliance with this limitation and thereby the Company's contribution
to color at the state line is determined as follows:
The SLc shall be calculated for each calendar month. The SLc value
calculated for each month shall not exceed 50 true color units. Any
exceedance of 50 true color units for this value shall be considered
as a violation of this permit.
The permit also requires that Champion monitor instream color at the:_
following four locations:
i. The Pigeon River just upstream of the waste treatment
plant outfall (prior to mixing with the discharge);
ii. The Pigeon River, between the discharge from Waterville
Reservoir and the mouth of Big Creek (prior to mixing
with water of Big Creek);
iii. The mouth of Big, Creek (prior to mixing with the waters
of the Pigeon River); and
iv. The Pigeon River at the bridge located approximately one
mile downstream of the North Carolina/Tennessee state
line. For the purposes of this permit, this sampling
station is designated the Pigeon River at the North
Carolina/ Tennessee state line.
These color monitoring conditions, in conjunction with effluent color
data, will provide information to evaluate the continued suitability of
the abc%7e t_)redictive equation. The instrea:r monitoring data will also
allow a further evaluation of compliance with the Tennessee color stanch-;
and the various sources of color contributing to conditions at the North
Carolina;'1 nnessee state line. If instrear monitor.in-- data shy: that the
equation set fort}: a'?ove is over-predicting or under-predicting the S-7 c
value, the equation will be adjusted to make it more accurate.
V ' s
Since the color limitations are based on a new interpretation of the
water quality standard in Tennessee and a new color standard for the
Pigeon River in North Carolina, the permit includes a compliance schedule
to meet the final limit for color.
Trichlorophenol/Pentachloro henol
The permittee certified that biocides used at the facility do not contain
either of these two compounds. This certification eliminates the require-
ment to include effluent limits for these two parameters based on the
provisions of 40 CFR 430.84 and 40 CFR 430.94. Quarterly monitoring
requirements for these two parameters were included in the NPDES permit
based on the requirements of the permit issued by the State of North
Carolina on May 14, 1985.
The monitoring requirements for trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol
may be deleted from the draft NPDES permit based on information supplied
by either the State of North Carolina or the permittee which states that
the monitoring requirements contained in the pern",it issued by the State
on May 14, 1985 have been deleted from the terms of that perr,.it.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Limitations in the NPDES permit for fecal coliform bacteria are based on
the requirements of the permit issued by the State on May 14, 1985.
These limits are necessary to maintain water quality standards for the
receiving stream (15 NCAC 2E .0211(b)(3)(E)).
Limitations for pH are based on the requirements of the permit issued by
the State on May 14, 1985. These limits are necessary to maintain water
quality standards for the receiving stream (15 NCAC 2B .0211(b)(3)(G)).
Temperature
The requirements of the NPDES permit relating to temperature are based on
the conditions of the permit issued by the State on !:ay 14, 1985. Thesa
limitations and monitoring requirements as specified in the NPDES permit
are necessary to meet the requirements of the Section 316(x) determination
completed by the State and approved by EPA on August 6, 1985. (See Item
4 of this Fact Sheet.)
Flow
The limit for effluent flow for the first three years of the permit is
based upon the requirements of the permit issued by the State of North
Carolina on May 14, 1985.
The limit for effluent flow for the remaining years of t'!,(-. is
bases' on 1::fo--Fration provided by Champion. Tl:is waSte4: Value is
based on the estimated prouuction capacity of the down-sizes Canton mill.

Monitoring Requirements
With the exception of the monitoring requirements for temperature and
ammonia discussed above, all effluent measurement frequencies, sample
types, and sample locations are based on the requirements of the permit
issued by the State on May 14, 1985. This includes CUD, total residue,
and settleable matter which are not limited but for which monitoring is
required in the NPDES permit.
Effluent Toxicity Requirements/Zinc
The effluent toxicity requirements and limitations are based on application
of North Carolina Water Quality Standards and previous effluent data for
the Champion facility relating to toxicity. 15 NCAC 02B .0208(a) states:
"The concentration of toxic substances in the receiving water, (either
alone or in combination, when affirmatively demonstrated to be non-
bioaccumulative) when not specified elsewhere in this Section, shall
not exceed the concentration specified by the fraction of the 96-hour
LC50 value which predicts a no effect chronic level (as deterrined
through the use of acute/chronic ratios)."
The ?north Carolina state water quality certification dated Feb: aar_y- 5,
1988, specified that the instream design flow at which chronic toxicity
criteria is applied should be the 7Q10 flow or the minimum instantaneous
upstreamr flow which could be maintained by Champion via releases f rov;
Lake Logan. The permit requires that Champion submit a proposal to
operate Lake Logan in order to provide the maximum possible dilution
during naturally low stream flow periods. After acceptance by EPA and
Champion, the tears of reservoir operation scheme may become a part of
the permit after modification. Until that time the no effect chren----
level limited in the permit is 85% (based on a 7Q10 flow value of
52.7 cfs for the Pigeon River upstream of the discharge).
NCAC 02P .021(b)(4)(D) ("Action Levels for Toxic Substances") also applies
to the Champion discharge since the reported effluent concentration and
resulting instrear concentration for zinc exceeds the action level for
this parameter.
Monitoring requirements for zinc have been included in the NPDES permit.
These monitoring requirements are also based on 15 NCAC 02B .0211(b)(4)(D).
Numerical limits for zinc are not being included in the NPDES permit
since the State Water Quality Standards do not contain a numerical
criteria for zinc and the biomonitoring requirements of the NPDES permit
are adequate to control toxicity due to the presence of zinc in the
facility effluent.
Previous bioassays conducted by EPA personnel have shown both acute and
chronic toxicity in the Champion effluent. In two chronic tests performer:
on Decerrber 2 and i?ecerrbe_r 7, 1983, chronic effects on reproduction an,
c;rov;t} occurred between: 25% and 500 (expressed as effluent concentrations)
fc- Ceriodaphnia reticulate and Pimephales promelas, respectivel"'.
In June 1987, toxicity tests were performed by North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management staff on the Champion discharge using Cerioda hnia
as the test species. No chronic toxicity was exhibited during these test
.using 100% effluent. The toxicity testing required in the perrr,it is
necessary, therefore, to determine the variability of effluent toxicity
of the effluent and to provide a basis to measure compliance with North
Carolina water quality standards. Based on a satisfactory demonstration
that the discharge meets North Carolina water quality standards for instream
toxicity, the requirements of the permit allow for reduction in frequency
of the testing requirements after the first year of testing following the
effective date of the effluent limitation for effluent toxicity.
Chloroform
The limitation for chloroform was established based on application of the
EPA ambient water quality criteria for protection of human health consid-
erations through ingestion of contaminated aquatic organisms. A risk
level of 10-6 was used to determine the appropriate instream criterion.
This criterion is a result of EPA's interpretation of 15 ;CAC 02E .0211
(b)(3)(L).
Recent data are available to update the criteria for protection of human
health established in the "Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for
Chloroform" (October, 1930). These data, summarized in "Health Assessment
Document for Chloroform" (September, 1986) can be usea to update the 1980
criteria using a new dose-risk slope value. Using this information, an
instream: criteria of. 0.036 mg/l can be calculated for protection of human
health through ingestion of contaminated organisms. This criteria was
applied at the mean annual flow for the Pigeon River at-the discharge
point. The permit rec;uires that the discharge of chloroform, expressed
_as a ?,ti;,t,lly average value, not exceed a concentration of 0.255 mg/1.
The mean,annual instream flow was used to establish the effluent
limitation based on the conditions of the North Carolina state water
quality certification of permit conditions dated February 5, 1988.
EPA is applying for the first time the narrative toxicity criteria of
North Carolina water cuality standards to the Pigeon River in establishing;
the limit for this perrr.it. Since a chloroform limit has not been previo;:sly
applied to the Champion discharge, the NPDES permit includes a compliance
schedule to meet the final permit limit for chloroform.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
The monitoring requirements are included in the permit in order to provide
data concerning levels of TDS discharged into the Pigeon River.

. • .
Dioxin
Measurable levels of dioxin have not been detected either in the wastewater
discharge from this facility nor in the Pigeon River from Canton, North
Carolina to Newport, Tennessee. Dioxin levels expressed as toxicity
equivalents (TEQ) to 2,3,7,8 TCDD have been found in fish in the Pigeon
River downstream from the discharge ranging from 2.3 to 80 parts per
trillion (ppt) in fillets and 36 to 91 ppt in wholebody fish analyses.
Because of these elevated levels, North Carolina issued an advisory
warning against consumption of fish in the Pigeon River in North Carolina.
These data are summarized in the report "Assessment of Dioxin Contamination
of Water, Sediment and Fish in the Pigeon River System (A Synoptic Survey)".
The EPA Water Quality Criterion for 2,3,7,8 TCDD for consumption of fish
only is 0.014 ppq* for a 10-6 cancer risk level.
(Conc River) (Aver Q) = (Cone Eff) (Q eff)
Conc eff = .014 pg/l (Ave. Annual Flow River)
Ave flow effluent
.014 pg/l (319 cfs)
45 cfs
0.10 N/1
* 1 part per quadrillion (ppa) = 1 picogram per liter (pg/1)
The permit requires that the discharge of 2,3,7,8 TCDD,_ expressed as a
monthly average value, not exceed 0.1`picogram`per liter. This value
is based on the above EPA water quality criterion and the average annual
instream flow of the Pigeon River at the Canton Mill outfall. This limit
is expressed as a monthly average value.
The permit also contains a schedule of compliance for meeting the water
quality-based limit for 2,3,7,8 TCDD. This schedule calls for meeting
the final limit no later than three years after the effective date of the
FerTrit. According to Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, compliance
with final effluent limitations for 2,3,7,8 TCDD is also required no
later than June 4, 1992. The basis for including this schedule in the
permit is that the limit for 2,3,7,8 TCDD represents a new interpretation
of North Carolina's existing narrative toxicity criteria for 2,3,7,8 TCDD
in the Pigeon River.
Three additional conditions are included which address the control of and
reduction of chloro-dibenzo dioxins and furans. Within 60 days of the
effective date of the permit, submission of a dioxin control plan (DCP)
is required. The DCP shall present any proposed process modifications
intended to reduce dioxin discharges, along with projected implementation
schedules and predicted effects. Additionally, the DCP must also include
implementation, of the suspended solids and chlorine r-,inimization conditions.
These two conditions are Best P9anaclement Practices (BmPs) and are intended
to further reruc the discharge and formation of dioxins respectively.

A reopener clause specific to 2,3,7,8 TCDD is also included in the permit
(See Part III B). The permit will be opened to adjust the effluent
limitation for 2,3,7,8 TCDD if North Carolina water quality standards are
adopted by the State of North Carolina and approved by EPA which contain
a numeric criterion for 2,3,7,8 TCDD which differs from the value presently
proposed by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (0.14
picograms per liter). Also, should additional information become available
related to the criteria for dioxin, major advances in analytical techniques
or should the ambient environmental data so indicate, this limitation may
be modified as appropriate by EPA.
4. REQUESTED VARIANCES OR ALTERNATIVES TO REQUIRED STANDARDS
On August 6, 1985, EPA approved the Section 316(a) determination as issued
by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission on October 11,
1984. This determination demonstrated that the effluent limitations
relating to the thermal component of the Champion discharge based or.
application of North Carolina Water Quality Standards were more stringent
than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in the Pigeon River.
Therefore, the 316(a) determination was approved based on protection of
the appropriate use classification of the Pigeon River.
The effluent limitation for true color was established based on meeting
the Tennessee water quality standard for instream color. The State of
North Carolina adopted, and EPA subsequently approved, a variance to the
North Carolina water duality standard for color. This variance was based
on meeting a true color level of 85 Platinum Cobalt units at the North
Carolina/Tennessee state line. Since the existing Tennessee water quality
standard for color is, in effect, more stringent than the conditions of
the North Carolina variance, the permit limit is written to assure
compliance with both States' water quality standards that apply at this
time.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The administrative record, including application, draft permit, fact sheet,
public notice, State Certification, comments received, and additional
information is available by writing EPA, Region IV or for review and
copying at 345 Courtland Street, N.E., 2nd Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30365
between the hours of 8:15 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday.
Copies will be provided at a minimal charge per page.
6. REFERENCES AND CITED DOCU11ENTS
All materials and documents referenced or cited in this fact sheet are
either a part of the Administrative Record or are readily availatle at
EPA, Re_ ior? IV. Inforr-ation regarding these -materials may be ottaine;:
fror- the person listed below.

7. EPA CONTACT
Additional information concerning the permit may be obtained at the address
and durinc, the hours noted in Item 5, from:
11s. Suzanne Durham
404/347-3004
8. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Public Notice March 29, 1989
Close Public Comment Period April 28, 1989
Final Permit Issued June 27, 1989

9. PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMULATION OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS
a. Comment Period
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
regarding permit issuance on the proposed permit limitations and
conditions to the following address:
Office of Public Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
ATTN: Ms.Suzanne Durham
Public Notice Coordinator
All comments received within thirty (30) days following the date
of public notice will be considered in the formulation of final
determinations with regard to the proposed permit issuance.
b. Public Hearing
The EPA Regional Administrator will hold a public hearing if
there is a significant degree of public interest in a proposed
permit or group of permits, or if he determines that useful
information and data may be obtained thereby. Public Notice of
such a hearing will be circulated at least thirty days prior to
the hearing
C. Issuance of the Permit
After consideration of all written comments and of the
requirements and policies in the Act and appropriate regulations,
and, if a public hearing is held, after consideration of all
comments, statements and data presented at the hearing, the EPA
Regional Administrator will make determinations regarding the
permit issuance. If the determinations are substantially
unchanged from the tentative determinations outlined above, the
Regional Administrator will so notify all persons submitting
written comments, and, if a public hearing was held, all persons
participating in the hearing. If the determinations are
substantially changed, the EPA Regional Administrator will issue
a public notice indicating the revised determinations.
Unless a request for an evidentiary hearing is granted, the
proposed permit contained in the Regional Administrator's
determinations shall become issued and effective and will be the
final action of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
- V
d. Evidentiary Hearing
If the determinations are substantially unchanged, any interested
person may submit a request for an evidentiary hearing on the
permit and its conditions within thirty (30) days of the receipt
of the notice described in section c. If the determinations are
substantially changed, any interested person may submit a request
for an evidentiary hearing within thirty days of the date of the
public notice or of the date of becoming aware of the
determinations, which ever comes first. Such requests will be
within the time period if mailed by Certified Mail within the
thirty day period to the Regional Hearing Clerk, Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia
30365. All requests must contain:
(1) The name, mailing address and telephone number of the person
making such request;
(2) A clear and concise factual statement of the nature and
scope of the interest of the requester;
(3) The names and addresses of all persons whom the requester
represents; and
(4) A statement by the requester that, upon motion of any party,
or sua sponte by the Presiding Officer and without cost or
expense to any other party, the requester shall make
- available to appear and testify, the following:
(i ) The requester; -- ---
(ii) All persons represented by the requester, and
(iii) All officers, directors, employees,
consultants and agents of the requester and
the persons represented by the requester.
(5) Specific references to the contested permit terms and
conditions, as well as suggested revised or alternative
permit terms and conditions (not excluding permit denial)
which, in the judgement of the requester, would be required
to implement the purposes and policies of the Act.
(6) In the case of challenges to the application of control or
treatment technologies identified in the statement of basis
or fact sheet, identification of the basis for the
objection, and the alternative technologies or combination
of technologies which the requester believes are necessary
to meet the requirements of the Act.

(7) Specific identification of each of the discharger's
obligations which should be stayed if the request is
granted. If the request contests more than one permit term
or condition then each obligation which is proposed to be
stayed must be referenced to the particular contested term
warranting the stay.
(8) Each legal or factual question alleged to be at issue and
its relevance to the permit decision.
(9) An estimate of the hearing time necessary for adjudication.
(10) Information supporting the request or relied upon which is
not already a part of the administrative record required by
40 CFR 124.18 (48 Fed. Reg. 14272, April 1, 1983).
The granting of a request will stay only the contest portions of
the permit. Uncontested provisions of the permit shall be
considered issued and effective and the permittee must comply
with such provisions. Except, if the permit is for a new source
or new discharge, the applicant will be without permit for the
proposed new source or new discharge, pending final Agency
action. The final Agency decision on the permit provisions
contested at an evidentiary hearing will be made inaccordance
with Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation Subpart E, found at 48
Federal Register 14278, et seg.

` ?• 'f 1? ? /'? ?, y?' :."• \ +r? ..elm :/ 2 ,1 /?',,S :.? \', k
'?? :/" _ •" DISCHARGE
2800
ill
an.:a Ave
At C?? ?J X11 ? v ;??Q'5?3?? •C` ', J
wpm
06
\ Boc \.'n L ON MI M6 CANT
fPrOperty Boon
dak
ry Shade(
ern ? see ? ? ?. ?? r ? ) ? ze J
- 1 • 14414t of
°Cn :"? :tic •?(/1 0
2760
?? ? ' ?", / ? '}•_ 760 -\ -
8550 Cpl 'EET /7.5 w; TO L S 276 ?`:?
'32 333
Tc A V 5C' 334
?3
_,See c.
NOS/NOAA. USGS. and NA
MN
TVA 1967 tr
g'a= _ rave- i956 a'- °-:F - 'g^c
care 194:. ^ a. .^e.vec 2 --
• 1967 36 M',5
prOj.Kllon: 1927 Nora'. Amencar
Datum _ h?- pNA
Iirv .xeu?;;ied NO?tr Am Ca ? .. .. _ '
er: n Daum i9?3 '` '•
a
1

Response to Comments Received April 9, 1987 - February 22, 1988
Champion International Corporation
NPDES Permit No. NC0000272
Introduction
This document responds to comments received as a result of a draft permit
which was sent to public notice on April 9, 1987 and subjected to a public
hearing on January 14 and January 21, 1988 in Asheville, North Carolina and
Knoxville, Tennessee, respectively. As a result of the public participation
process, it was concluded that the proposed permit limitations for color were
economically unachievable. As a result, Champion International Corporation
applied for variances to the water quality standard for color applicable to
the Pigeon River in both North Carolina and Tennessee. North Carolina granted
a variance on July 13, 1988. EPA approved the variance on August 13, 1988.
Tennessee denied the identical variance.
Currently the Company is seeking a permit for a down-sized mill in order to
maintain the Tennessee water quality standard for color at the Tennessee/North
Carolina state line.
This response to comments also includes the events which have occurred subsequent
to and as a result of the public participation process and the comment period
from April 9, 1987 through February 22, 1.988. The comment period related to
the April 9, 1987 draft permit is closed. A new comment period for the March 29,
1989 draft permit will be started as of March 29, 1989.
A. Comments Directly Related to Permit Conditions and/or Limitations:
For each condition required in the draft permit, a summary of comments
received which relate to that permit condition and the effect of the
comment relative to previous draft permit conditions are given.
1. Flow
As a result of the public participation process and subsequent actions
by North Carolina and Tennessee on their respective water quality
standards for color (discussed later), Champion now proposes to reduce
the design production capacity of the Canton Mill. The down-sized
mill has been estimated by Champion to result in an average effluent
flow of 29 million gallons per day (mgd) to the Pigeon River.
In the current draft TN'PDES permit, the flow 111nitation of 48.5 mgd
has been retained for the first three years after the effective date
of the issued permit, and a flow limitation of 29 mgd has been
added as the effective limit after that point in time.
'wt
-2-
2. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five day)
During the public comment period, a substantial number- of comments
were received requesting that the effluent limit for five day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) be made more stringent. These
comments appear to be made based on a 1981 wasteload allocation for
the Pigeon River_ which addressed the impact of BOD5 and ammonia on
instream dissolved oxygen levels conducted by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management. Champion had previously
demonstrated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the
effluent limit for effluent BOD5 proposed in the April 9, 1987 draft
permit in conjunction with side stream oxygenation facilities operated
by Champion downstream of the outfall met the requirements of 40 CFR
125.3(f) relating to alternate methods of achieving water quality
standards. (See Fact Sheet.)
Champion also submitted a request to remove the concentration limits
for effluent BOD5 based on the contention that the effluent limit for
BOD5 loading and the requirement to operate oxygenation facilities at
locations 0.9 and 2.1 miles downstream of the present outfall were
adequate to maintain the water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen
in the Pigeon River.
The current draft permit has been revised to delete the concentration
limits for BOD5. Based on the data available at this time, the
effluent limit for. BOD5, concurrent with operation of side stream
oxygenation facilities will maintain the North Carolina water quality
criteria for dissolved oxygen. (See discussion of Instream Oxygenation
below.)
3. Ammonia
Comments were received requesting that an effluent limit for ammonia
be incorporated into the draft permit based on the 1981 study of the
Pigeon River conducted by the NCDEM. (See discussion of BOD5, above.)
No change has been made in the draft permit to include a limit for
ammonia. Based on data available at the present time, the requirements
of the draft permit are adequate to achieve North Carolina water
quality criteria for dissolved oxygen. (See discussion of Instream
Oxygenation below.)
The requirement to monitor effluent levels of ammonia on a daily
basis has been retained.
4. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
A substantial number of comments were received requesting that the
effluent limits for total suspended solids (TSS) be modified to
include concentration-based TSS limits. These requests were made
based on a report released by NCDEM in 1980 (Pigeon River Investi-
gation). One of the recommendations of the report was that effluent
limits of 25 to 30 mg/l TSS should be required for the Champion
effluent.
C

-3-
This recommendation was not reached based on a valid cause and effect
relationship of instream TSS levels and North Carolina water quality
standards. The State water quality certification dated February 5, 1988
submitted by the NCDEM did not include a requirement to limit TSS to
more stringent levels than in the current draft permit. The TSS
limits in the April 9, 1987 draft permit have been retained for the
first three years after the effective date of the issued permit. The
limits in effect after that point in time reflect the capacity of the
proposed down-sized production facilities at the Canton Mill and the
effluent guidelines for the appropriate subcategory of the Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard point source category.
5. Dissolved Oxygen (effluent)
No comments received.
No revisions made.
6. Fecal Coliform
No comments received.
No revisions made.
7. Temperature
Several comments were received which recommended that the permit
conditions addressing instream thermal impacts be based on the North
Carolina Class C temperature criteria for mountain and upper piedmont
waters or similar criteria.
The current draft permit conditions for temperature are based on a
316(a) determination made by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (NCEEC) on October 3, 1984 and approved by EPA on August 6,
1985. This demonstration allows relaxation of statewide thermal
criteria when application of an effluent limit proposed to meet the
thermal criteria is more stringent than necessary to assure the
protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of
fish, shellfish and wildlife in and on the affected water. No data
are available to conclude that the 316(a) determination made by the
State is incorrect based on projected instream water quality resulting
from the implementation of the current permit conditions relating to
instream thermal impacts, in combination with other requirements of
the current draft permit. Therefore, the current permit conditions
which relate to temperature remain unchanged.
8. Chemical Oxygen Demand
No comments received.
No changes made.
9. Total Residue
No comments received.
No changes made.

-4-
10. Settleable Matter
No comments received.
No changes made.
11. Trichlorophenol
No comments received.
No changes made.
12. Pentachlorophenol
No comments received.
No changes made.
13. Color
The April 8, 1987 draft permit requirement for color was based on the
following equation:
Downstream Q discharge X Effluent
Color Value Q upstream Color Value
The terms of this permit condition were considered to be violated if
the downstream true color value exceeded 50 Platinum Cobalt color
units.
In general, the comments received could be categorized as follows:
(1) Impacts of color on the aesthetics of the Pigeon River;,
(2) Impacts of color on aquatic life in the Pigeon River;
(3) Efficiencies of color removal or treatment technologies;
(4) Costs of construction and operation of color removal or treatment
technologies;
(5) Technical justification of 50 apparent color units as the
interpretation of narrative color criteria for North Carolina
and Tennessee;
(6) Instream impacts of color in combination with other pollutants;
(7) In-plant color balance for the existing and modernized processes
at the Canton Mill;
(8) Comparison of the Pigeon River to other highly colored streams;
(9) The appropriate method for measurement of true and apparent
color levels;
1i
a
-5-
(10) Inclusion of a compliance schedule for color- requirements;
(11) The economic impact of closure of the Canton Mill due to the
inability to meet an instream color level of 50 apparent color
units.
Responses to these comments are briefly summarized as follows (in the
order of listing above):
(1) No information submitted sufficiently justified a revision to
EPA's interpretation of 50 apparent Platinum Cobalt units as
being the correct interpretation of Section 15 NCAC .0211(b)(3)(F)
for the criterion for maintenance of the aesthetic quality of the
Pigeon River.
(2) Since the criterion of 50 apparent color units is based on the
aesthetic quality of the Pigeon River, these comments are not
directly applicable to the draft permit conditions. However,
the conditions of the draft permit which address effluent toxicity
do, in part, address the impact of effluent color- on the biota
of the Pigeon River.
(3) Several comments were received summarizing historical or projected
performance of color removal technologies in relation to the
Canton Mill effluent (existing wastewater..and estimated effluent
conditions after a proposal for plant modernization). These
comments relate to economics of the Canton Mill operation, and
do not pertain directly to the draft permit.
(4) These comments are not pertinent to conditions required in the
draft permit.
(5) Comments were received which discussed previous EPA publications
or other documents relating to instream. color criteria. No new
information was received which was not addressed in the
establishment of the 50 apparent color unit criteria prior to
the April 8, 1987 draft permit.
(6) Other than the toxicity-related impacts of instream color
discussed in (2) above, no comments were received which provided
an adequate basis to establish an instream criteria other than
for maintenance of the aesthetic quality of the Pigeon River.
(7) These comments are only indirectly related to the economics of
the Canton Mill and are not pertinent to the draft permit.
(8) Since the narrative criteria for color in North Carolina water
quality standards was used to establish a specific color- criterion
for the Pigeon River, these comments do not relate to the
conditions of the draft permit.
1#Y
-6-
(9) The analytical technique used to measure compliance with the
color limitation in the permit was initially changed from the
method required in the April 8, 1987 draft permit. However,
this method has been retained as the method proposed by EPA in
1974 during consideration of developing effluent guidelines for
color in the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard category of point
source dischargers.
(10) The current draft permit contains a compliance schedule for
meeting final color effluent limits. The time frame was established
based on best professional judgement that conversion of production
facilities at the Canton Mill could occur in as early as three
years after permit issuance. See Item 20 below for a discussion
of the rationale to include a compliance schedule for this
parameter.
(11) Many comments were received which projected the economic and
social impacts of closure of the Canton Mill. These comments
summarized the negative impact of loss of jobs at the Canton
Mill, closure of supporting or related business activities, and
impacts of loss of direct and indirect salaries from the Champion
business community; as well as the creation of new jobs and
related income from projected use of the Pigeon River upon
compliance` with the 50 apparent color unit criterion. These
comments donot directly relate to the conditions of the draft
permit.
Champion International requested from the States of North Carolina and
Tennessee variances from water quality standards for instream color in
the Pigeon. River. These variance requests were based on maintaining a
level of true color at the North Carolina/Tennessee state line of 85
Platinum Cobalt color- units. North Carolina granted this variance
from the instream color criteria and EPA Region IV approved the variance
on August 13, 1988.
The request for a variance to Tennessee water quality standards was
denied by Tennessee. Therefore, the color standard for the Pigeon
River at the North Carolina/Tennessee state line is 50 Platinum Cobalt
apparent color units. Based on information supplied by Champion
International and analysis of existing information by EPA, an equation
was developed relating Champion's contribution of color to instream
color levels at the state line. This equation is used in the current
draft permit to determine compliance with the limits for color based
on the color standard at the state line.
In addition, the current draft permit requires instream monitoring of
color levels in the Pigeon River- upstream of the Champion outfall in
the discharge from Waterville Reservoir, and in Big Creek, just prior
to the confluence with the Pigeon River.
0

-7-
14. pH
No cco ments received.
No changes made.
15. Effluent Toxicity
Several comments were received from Champion as well as other commenters
relating to the proposed effluent limit and the methods listed in the
draft permit to measure effluent toxicity. The April 8, 1987 draft
permit required that the effluent no observed adverse effect level
(NOEL) not be less than the average instream wastewater concentration
(IVC) calculated over seven days of instream flow values. The current
draft permit requires that the NOEL of the effluent shall not be
less than 85%. This value may be modified based on the outcome of a
study to be conducted by Champion on the possibility of maintaining a
guaranteed minimum instantaneous flow upstream of the Champion outfall.
Maintenance of this modified instream flow will be projected based on
management of releases at Lake Logan and will be included as a
requirement of the issued permit, when approved by EPA. The resulting
value of the IVE may be used to modify the NOEL concentration in
the permit.
The revision in the permit limit for effluent toxicity is based upon
the requirements of the Section 401 North Carolina state water quality
certification of permit conditions dated February 5, 1988. In the
state certification, the State interpreted Section 15 NCAC 2B
.0206(a)(4) and concluded that variable effluent limits for toxicity
could not be allowed under State law and that the toxicity limit
should be based upon the 7Q10 flow or the minimum instantaneous-Ellow
in the Pigeon River- upstream of the discharge.
Although Champion initially objected to the use of the toxicity
testing methods required in the April 8, 1987 draft permit, Champion
officials have stated that these methods are acceptable to measure
compliance with the terms of the permit related toxicity. The number.
of test organisms and the frequency of sampling remains unchanged
from the April 8, 1987 draft permit.
The April 8, 1987 draft permit implied that the Pigeon River flow
upstream of the outfall should be measured and reported. These
conditions were added to the current draft permit.
The current draft permit contains a schedule of compliance for the
effluent toxicity limit which states that compliance must be achieved
no later than three years after the effective date of the issued
permit. This time frame was established based on a best professional
judgement of the time required for conversion of production facilities
at the Canton Mill, including installing oxygen delignification
facilities.
-8-
16. Chloroform
Several commenters discussed the need for an effluent limit for
chloroform. Champion commented on several aspects of the criteria
used to determine the effluent limit required in the April 8, 1987
draft permit: The comments included new data used to evaluate the
dose-risk slope value for chloroform for calculation of EPA human
health criteria, the risk level used to set the criterion, the bio-
concentration factor for chloroform for fish in the Pigeon River,
new data collected on the levels of chloroform in the Canton Mill
effluent, and the fate of chloroform discharged in the effluent.
The April 8, 1987 draft permit included an effluent limit for
chloroform of 15.7 ug/l. This value was established based on the
1980 human health criteria for chloroform at a 10-6 risk level
applied at the 30Q5 flow of the Pigeon River. The current draft
permit has been modified to reflect an effluent limit of 0.255 mg/l
per day (expressed as a monthly average value). This revision is
based on the recalculation of the human health criteria based on the
new dose-risk slope value applied at the annual average flow in the
Pigeon River. The revised criterion of 36 u9/1 was established by
EPA; NCDEM has concurred in the use of a 10-6 risk factor via the
state water quality certification. The use of the long term average
instream flow in applying this criterion is based on North Carolina's
interpretation of 15 NCAC .0206 as specified in the state certification
of permit requirements necessary to meet water quality standards for
the State. The effluent limitation for chloroform in the current
draft permit is based on the effluent flow of the reconfigured mill
(29 mad). The rationale for establishing an effluent limit at this
discharge flow is that the permit requires compliance with this flow
limit"simultaneously with compliance with the chloroform limit.
Part III of the current draft permit has been revised to include a
schedule of compliance for the chloroform limitation. See Item 20
below for a discussion of the rationale for including a compliance
schedule for chloroform, as well as for other parameters.
Since the time of the original draft NPDES permit, effluent chloroform
levels at the Champion Mill in Cantonment, Florida have been measured.
Operations at the Cantonment Mill include oxygen delignification as a
bleaching step. However, the biological wastewater treatment operations
at the Cantonment Mill are different from those at the Canton Mill
(oxidation ponds versus activated sludge treatment). Of the data
available at this time (17 samples collected over a 4 month period),
no effluent chloroform concentrations have been detected using a
method with a detection limit of 10 ug/l for the Cantonment Mill
effluent. Considering these data, it is likely that the effluent
concentrations of chloroform at the Canton Mill will be decreased
after conversion to the oxygen delignification process.
The monitoring frecquency.for chloroform has been revised from once
per month to once per week in the current draft permit.
r
r
-9-
17. 2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (dioxin)
The April 8, 1987 draft permit did not address the issue of dioxin.
Many commenters requested that EPA determine the amount of dioxin
contained in the Champion discharge and the extent of the presence
of dioxin in the fish, sediments and waters of the Pigeon River.
The monitoring effort to address these questions began after the
public hearings held in January 1988. The sampling results for fish,
sediments and water column data available to date are summarized in
the report "Assessment of Dioxin Contamination of Water, Sediment and
Fish in the Pigeon River System (A Synoptic Survey)". Also, dioxin
levels of pulp, wastewater, and sludge were measured by Champion at
several locations in the pulp mill and the wastewater collection/
treatment system at the Canton Mill. These data are summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1
Levels of Dioxin - Canton Mill (May 2, 1988)
Location Concentration
2,3,7,8 TCDDl 2,3,7,8 TCDF2
Low Pine Pulp 17 ppt 27 ppt
High Hardwood Pulp Not Detected (6 ppt)* 9.9 ppt
High Pine Pulp 6.5 ppt 11.4 ppt
Low Hardwood Pulp 5.8 ppt 10.4 ppt
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Sludge 175 ppt Detected
Landfill 6 Leachate Not Detected (28 ppq)* 72 ppq
Secondary Effluent Not Detected (18 ppq)* Not Detected (24 ppq)*
City Sewer Not Detected (12 ppq)* Not Detected (9.8 ppa)*
Primary Influent 228 ppq 332 ppq
1 2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin
2 2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-furan
* number in parenthesis is the minimum detectable concentration.

0 .
-10-
Measurable levels of dioxin have not been detected in the Canton Mill
effluent or in the Pigeon River downstream of the discharge. Dioxin
has been found in fish collected in the North Carolina segment of the
Pigeon River downstream of the Canton Mill discharge at levels of
2,3,7,8 TCDD toxicity equivalents ranging from 2.3 to 80 ppt in
fillets and from 36 to 91 ppt for whole fish.
Based on a review of this data, the State of North Carolina has issued
an advisory warning against consumption of fish caught in the segment
of the Pigeon River from the Champion outfall to the North Carolina/
Tennessee state line.
The current draft permit has been revised to address the comments
received and new information generated since the April 8, 1987 draft
permit through inclusion of the following:
1) Effluent limit (with a schedule of compliance) for 2,3,7,8 TCDD
based on the existing North Carolina water quality standards and
EPA ambient water quality criteria (quarterly sampling require-
ments);
2) Monitoring requirements for all isomers of chloro-dibenzo dioxins
and furans for influent wastewater, wastewater sludge, and landfill
leachate (quarterly sampling requirements);
3) Annual monitoring program to determine levels of all isomers of
chloro-dibenzo dioxins and furans present in fish tissues downstream
of the discharge;
4) Best Management Practices to minimize discharge of total suspended
solids in the Canton Mill effluent;
5) Best Management Practices to minimize use of chlorine in the
production facilities at the Canton Mill; and
6) Requirement to submit a dioxin control plan to address other
actions at the mill to reduce the formation and discharge of
dioxin.
Part III of the current draft permit has also been revised to include
a schedule of compliance for the dioxin effluent limitation.
EPA has reason to believe that conversion to oxygen delignification
will reduce chlorine usage and also reduce the formation of chlorinated
dioxins and furans, although there is insufficient data at this time
for confirmation.
Also, the permit has been modified to include a reopener clause
specifically for 2,3,7,8 TCDD. The permit will be opened to adjust
the effluent limitation for 2,3,7,8 TCDD if North Carolina water
quality standards are adopted by the State of North Carolina and
approved by EPA which contain a numeric criterion for 2,3,7,8 TCDD
which differs from the value presently proposed by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission (0.14 picograms per liter).

18. Zinc
-11-
Several comments were received concerning the need for an effluent
limitation for zinc. The April 8, 1987 draft permit contains only
monitoring requirements for this parameter. The current draft permit
is unchanged and does not limit the amount of zinc discharged in the
effluent. However, the permit requirements relating to effluent
toxicity provide adequate protection from instream toxicity to
aquatic life from the affects of zinc contained in the discharge.
19. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
No comments received.
No changes made.
20. Schedule of Compliance
The April 8, 1987 draft permit specified that compliance with all
effluent limitations should be achieved upon the effective date of
the issued permit. The Fact Sheet for that draft listed the rationale
for effluent limitations and recognized that a schedule of compliance
to meet final limitations for color would be allowable.
EPA received comments which supported an effective
effluent limitations concurrent with.the effective
permit as well as comments recommending inclusion
compliance for various limits extending compliance
five years after the effective date of the issued
date for all final
date of the issued
of a schedule of
for as much as
permit.
The current draft permit has been modified to require a schedule of
compliance with final limitations for flow, total suspended solids,
effluent toxicity, chloroform and color, including an effective date
three years after the effective date of the issued permit. Compliance
with the final effluent limit for 2,3,7,8 TCDD is required no later
than June 4, 1992. A schedule of compliance can be allowed in an
NPDES permit for water quality-based effluent limitations which have
been established based on: (1) water quality standards adopted after
1977, or (2) new applications or interpretations of existing water
quality criteria. The time of compliance of three years was established
based on best professional judgement of the minimum term to accomplish
conversion of production facilities at the Canton Mill (including oxygen
delignification in the pulping process).
21. Reopener Clauses
Several comments, including
water quality certification
requesting that EPA include
the draft permit for limits
April 8, 1987 draft permit.
the Section 401 North Carolina state
of permit conditions, were received
reopener clauses in Part III (B) of
for specific parameters required in the

-12-
Specific reopener clauses have been added for: (1) color, (2) dioxin
and (3) effluent parameters related to oxygen demand and operation of
oxygen injection facilities downstream of the discharge outfall. A
statement has also been added to this section that states that the
conditions and limitations required in the permit and predicated upon
Champion's reconfiguration to a down-sized mill, including oxygen
delignification.
The standard reopener clause required in the April 8, 1987 draft
permit has been retained in the current draft permit. This reopener
clause addresses permit action of modification, or revoke/reissuance
in order to comply with effluent standards or limitation required by
the Clean Water Act for: (1) parameters for which controls are
warranted for different conditions or otherwise more stringent than
any effluent limitation in the issued permit, or (2) controls for any
pollutant not limited in the permit at the time of final issuance.
22. Requirement to Operate Oxygenation Injection Facilities on the Pigeon
River
The April 8, 1987 draft permit included a condition to operate oxygen
injection facilities at locations 0.9 and 2.1 miles downstream of the
Canton Mill outfall. The measure of compliance for operation of
these facilities was a requirement to maintain an average of 5 mg/l
and a instantaneous minimum of -4 mg/l,for dissolved oxygen (D.O.)
at six locations downstream of-the discharge.
Champion commented that three of the stations used to measure compliance
with this condition were downstream of the Waynesville municipal
wastewater treatment plant discharge and that dissolved oxygen levels
at these three stations could be impacted by that discharge.
Based on these comments and a subsequent review of the model developed
by NCDEM to set the initial effluent limits for the Champion discharge
(see Item 2 above), EPA has concluded that allocation of wasteloads
for oxygen demanding parameters for the Pigeon River should be
revisited. This conclusion was reached based on the observation that
at the 7Q10 flow, the Waynesville discharge contributes 25% of the
oxygen demanding materials at the point of discharge based on existing
permitted loads. A survey of water quality (related to D.O.) in the
North Carolina segment of the Pigeon River was completed in September
1988. These results will be used during 1989 to compare to the
previous modeling efforts by NCDEM of the Pigeon River and to determine
if the wasteload allocation should be revised.
The current NPDES permit for the City of Waynesville expires on
April 30, 1989. Upon completion of the ongoing water quality survey,
the Waynesville permit will be reissued and the Champion permit will
be modified, if necessary, to incorporate the results of the revised
wasteload allocation.
c
-13-
The current draft permit has been modified to reflect that the three
instream stations above river mile 55.5 (upstream of the Waynesville
outfall) will be used to judge compliance with permit requirements to
operate oxygen injection facilities. Monitoring at the remaining
three stations has been retained. In addition, measurement and
reporting of the instream flow at River Mile 55.5 (USGS Gaging Station
at HEPCO) has been included as a condition of the current permit.
23. Requirements of Part II
No comments received.
The requirements of Part II were revised by EPA to clarify portions
of the language in previous Part II requirements and to include new
requirements of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987.

Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of.the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit by the Federal agency will not cause violation of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by _
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than . -- KAY 71-',111-90'
Any comments should be addressed to e N.C.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr.,William
Mills at [phone],
off?
?---? R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
Y
4
yrs.
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section Apra- I ? ? ?98p
2 e45Ar0,1le. 0A'ze*, ¢ mes
Ti •0•60x aDgO
t -yeti Ile, N C Z S?d2
Attn: Legal Ad Department
Dear Sirs
Please find attached a Public Notice regarding a Water Quality Certi-
fication. Please publish the Notice one time in your newspaper on or before
Agri ( 2 I , 1 89
The invoice in duplicate and three copies of the affidavit of publication
should be sent to:
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
'Water-Quality Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attn: William Mills
Payment cannot be authorized unless the affidavit of publication is
submitted. If You have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Wil am C. Mills
WCM/bra
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attachment
P
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit by the Federal agency will not cause violation of
water Sectionsa3Oly 302nd303S 306 and 307 ofmitat`ons`reguired by
, the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than' MAY 7:;-,1:4-89:
Any comments should be addressed to the N.C.
Division o£ Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at [phone], '
/af Z4,)4 Cz- L4- - ) - n a&
9
at 41R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
l•
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit by the Federal agency will not cause violation of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301,_302, 303,_306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than : NAB 79:.
Any comments should be addressed to e N.C.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at (919) 733-50830 '
zi, )4
9
at R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Office of Director
/Attached is referred to:
.,/
Please prepare a final Z/ draft _ repZy by
for signature by the:
Governor _ Deputy Secretary Director
Secretary _ Asst. Secretary _ Asst. Director
_ In your response, please note correspondence was
referred by :
_ Indicate carbon copies to
_ Indicate blind carbond copies to
- In taking action, coordinate efforts with
_ Please review attached and give me your comments by
Coordinate your review and comment with
Please handle
` Please note and advise me as approp ;ate
_ Please note and fi Ze ?i
-Please discuss with me MAR 22 J9.49
_ For your information
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
Remarks: Please return background information
with drafted responses.
Log Number 02L3j 0
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit-by'-the Federal agency-wi11 not cause-violation-of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or.the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than &AY_7 `1`4£9
„ Any comments should be addressed to e
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at (919) 733-50830
at R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
_violation of
permit by the.Federal agency will not cause
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than -K-A-Y 7 INV
.< Any comments should be addressed to tfte N.C.-
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at (919) 733-50830
?p
at /4??K. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
i`
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit by the Federal-agency will not cause violation of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than ?1Y 7; ;14£9: ..._.}
Any comments should be addressed to the
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at [phone],
L4-
+a R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit,by the Federal agency Will not cause violation of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59.Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than Y Ti `1-9£89-
Any comments should be addressed to e N.C.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at [phone],
/a 07
at -?-? R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit by the Federal agency will not-cause violation of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than :1 AY 714-89,'
Any comments should be addressed to e
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at [phone], .
UdLe T R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
.permit. by. theFederal agency will not cause violation of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than ;-_AY 7: 1.4 39:
Any comments should be addressed to the
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at [phone],
?a- f9
a? R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.
y`
Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit by the Federal -agencywill not cause violatim of -
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than . .Y 7; 1489:
Any comments should be addressed to e N.C.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at [phone],
9
at R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.

Public Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
of the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has received an application from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, Atlanta, Georgia, for a Water Quality Certification,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as
amended, for the draft NPDES Permit proposed by EPA for
continued discharge of treated wastewater by Champion
International Corporation into Pigeon River in Canton,
Haywood County, North Carolina. The Water Quality
Certification is a determination by the State agency
responsible for water quality protection that the proposed
permit by'the'Federal- agency will-not cause violation of
water quality standards and effluent limitations required by
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on the application for
Water Quality Certification. A copy of the application may
be inspected at the Department's office in Raleigh, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Room 904E or the
Asheville Regional Office, Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin
Place, Asheville, N.C., during normal work hours- Comments
must be submitted in writing no later than 14 = 7 J--4?9-
Any comments should be addressed to e . .
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611. Any questions
regarding the Application can be directed to Mr. William
Mills at [phone],
at R. Paul Wilms, Director
N.C. Division of Environmental Mgmt.