NC0000272_Other Agency Documents_20220401

NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Committee Minutes
September 9, 2020
The NPDES Committee held a virtual meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 2020. The
NPDES Committee meeting audio and presentations were broadcast via the state web
conferencing link posted on the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
website at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-
commissions/environmental-management-commission
The meeting was called to order by teleconference at 1:00 p.m. with Chair Deerhake
presiding. She provided the notice required by N.C.G.S. § 138A-15(e).
' DES COMMITTL+�E MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
Marion Deerhake (NPDES Chair)
Mitch Gillespie
Patricia Harris (Vice -Chair)
John McAdams
Charles Carter
Maggie Monast
Dr. A. Stan Meiburg (EMC Chair), Ex-
Officio
EMC MEMBERS & COUNSEL IN ATTENDANCE
Dr. Suzanne Lazorick, EMC Vice -Chair
Mr. Phillip Reynolds, Counsel
David Anderson
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Connie Brower
Sergei Chernikov
Julie Grzyb, NPDES Section Chief
L Preliminary Matters
Danny Smith, DWR Director
Lois Thomas
Chair Deerhake said she had expected to see the 2010 permit conditions or litigation
settlement conditions in the September 2020 package. Counsel Reynolds explained to her before
the meeting that those conditions were not in the package because they were not necessary since
Blue Ridge Paper was proposing to demonstrate compliance with the color standard.
1 of 5

II.
• The meeting was called to order at 1:00 pm with Chair Deerhake presiding. She
took a voice roll call of the members in attendance and confirmed a quorum
existed.
• Chair Deerhake read the State Government Ethics Act - G.S. 163A-159(e)
"Conflicts of Interest" notice. No Committee members responded that they had a
conflict of interest with any action or information item on the meeting agenda.
There were no conflicts of interest.
Chair Deerhake said the Committee would hear one action item. She recognized EMC
Counsel Phillip Reynolds to explain the purpose of the meeting and the variance review process.
Counsel Reynolds explained that the NPDES Committee is a standing committee of the
EMC. The Committee was dissolved a few years ago but the request from Blue Ridge Paper
Products made it necessary for EMC Chairman Meiburg to re-establish the Committee and appoint
members. Counsel Reynolds stated that the U.S. EPA treats a water quality variance -related action
such as the one before the Committee as a change in standard. Therefore, the EMC's Water Quality
Committee members would be appropriate members to serve on the NPDES Committee. However,
he explained that given the nature of the NPDES Committee, there are specific rules and
requirements regarding conflicts of interest. Therefore, WQC member Commissioner Donna
Davis could not serve on the NPDES Committee because she was affiliated with Stanley County
which holds an NPDES permit.
Counsel Reynolds said the agenda item was quasi-judicial in nature, meaning the
Committee must make a decision based on the record. He explained that the Committee was not
being asked to make a fmal decision at the September 2020 meeting. He stated that the permit and
specifically the color variance had been an issue of interest for a number of years, and the last time
the variance was considered was by the NPDES Committee was 2010. At that time, there was
litigation regarding both the NPDES permit and the variance. He closed by saying that before the
Committee makes a final decision about the variance removal request, the proposed decision must
be noticed for public comment.
Chair Deerhake explained that the Division of Water Resources (DWR) was concurrently
reviewing the Blue Ridge Paper Products NPDES permit renewal request. DWR's Division
Director is delegated authority to make NPDES permit decisions. However, NPDES permit
variance decisions historically have been the responsibility of the EMC NPDES Committee. Blue
Ridge Paper's variance has allowed the facility to exceed the narrative color standard in its
wastewater treatment effluent discharged into the Pigeon River. The color variance was granted
and renewed over the years on the condition that Blue Ridge Paper study, develop, and implement
an effective color reduction technology. During the ongoing NPDES permit renewal process, Blue
Ridge Paper requested removal of the color variance, explaining that through technology
advancements and practices, the effluent discharge can now comply with the narrative instream
color standard. She said it is the NPDES Committee's responsibility to determine if the request to
remove the color variance should proceed to public hearing concurrent with the public hearing for
the NPDES permit renewal.
2 of 5

Chair Deerhake said that around 2000-2001 she was the EMC's hearing officer on Blue
Ridge Paper's request to continue the NPDES permit's color variance. There has been at least one
renewal of the variance since that time, but she was not the hearing officer even though she sat on
the NPDES Committee at that time.
Chair Deerhake said she had expected to see the 2010 permit conditions or litigation
settlement conditions in the September 2020 package. Counsel Reynolds explained to her before
the meeting that those conditions were not in the package because they were not necessary since
Blue Ridge Paper was proposing to demonstrate compliance with the color standard.
Chair Deerhake explained the extensive work Blue Ridge Paper has done over the years to
research and modify its production process technology to reduce wastewater effluent color. She
added that the wastewater is discharged to a very small receiving river that makes it more prone to
color issues. She said she asked DWR's Sergei Chernikov before the meeting what steps Blue
Ridge Paper had taken since 2010 to bring the discharge and the receiving water closer to the
compliance level because that wasn't clear in the original documents the Committee received. She
said Mr. Chernikov recommended the 2015 Blue Ridge Paper annual report she sent Committee
members because it contained a good chronology of the color -related work done at the facility.
She pointed members to the effort invested in maintenance, process modifications, equipment
replacement, etc. Her last comment was that originally, instream monitoring was performed to
measure for the color standard of 50. Now the new approach appears to be to measure the change
in color between the background level upstream of the paper mill to the first point monitored
downstream of the wastewater treatment plant's outfall; the goal being a color difference of 50.
She asked Dr. Chernikov to explain why this change in approach was taken to achieving
compliance was [made.
Dr. Chernikov stated that when the first Settlement agreement was signed, the level of 50
Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU) was established at the state line and that NC never agreed to establish
50 PCU as the interpretation of the narrative color standard, which shall be met at the first
downstream sampling point (Fiberville Bridge). The DWR approach to establish A50 PCU
between upstream and downstream color is consistent with the state of Tennessee color limit
implementation that uses A50 PCU for their facilities. The state of Maine uses A40 PCU for their
facilities. By using this approach we are trying to exclude other color contributions from the
upstream sources. Dr. Chernikov also pointed out that the original EPA interpretation of the NC
narrative color standard to be 50 PCU is based on the ability of the average observer to detect the
color, and NC state standard is based on the objectionability of the color; there is a significant
difference between these two terms. Dr. Chernikov mentioned that consultations have been made
with EPA and TN about the proposes permit and both parties have not made significant objections
regarding color.
Commissioner Carter asked why the Committee was meeting about this request. He
stated that it seemed like taking the request to public notice could be managed by DWR. He added
that he understood the NPDES Committee would be responsible for acting on whether or not the
variance should remain in the permit. But it was not clear why the Committee must act to send the
request to public notice.
3 of 5
Commented [M'I]: Didn't Chernikov speak at this I
point? It needs to be summarized here.

Counsel Reynolds explained that DWR was responsible for the permit, and the Committee
was responsible for the variance. Because the Committee is required under NC GS 143-215.3 (e)
to issue a notice for public comment on the variance removal request, it can authorize staff to do
that at the same time DWR issues its notice for public comment on the NPDES permit renewal. If
the NPDES Committee sends the request to public notice, the EMC Chairman would appoint a
hearing officer for the variance separate from a hearing officer for the NPDES permit, and two
hearing officers' reports would be prepared — one for the EMC (variance removal request) and one
for DWR (permit renewal request). The reason the Committee was asked to act in September 2020
is because it must act in order to authorize support staff.
There was further discussion and questions from Commissioner Carter which Counsel
Reynolds addressed. Chairman Meiburg also made some comments regarding Commissioner
Carter's questions.
Connie Brower then proceeded with DWR's presentation.
Chair Meiburg asked for clarification on the chart about evaluation with the Surface
Water Quality Narrative Standard. He asked if the return of the Walleye in the river run and the
trophy small mouth bass fishery were both occurring below the dam. Ms. Brower responded yes.
Mr. Chernikov presented following Ms. Brower.
Chair Deerhake asked if there were any other questions or comments for the presenters.
Hearing none, she said she roughly tabulated the work reported in 2015 by Blue Ridge Paper. She
said there were four actions that followed the defmition of Best Management Practice (BMP)
"improvement"; 19 actions defined as BMP "sustaining"; nine actions categorized as the Technical
Review Workgroup's recommendations; and one action that responded to consulting engineer Dr.
Liebergot's recommendation. She noticed some of those actions may have been part of routine
maintenance whereas other actions were capital improvements.
Chair Deerhake then asked for a motion to take the request to public hearing.
Motion
Commissioner Harris made a motion to approve DWR to proceed with the public
hearing and comment period to advise the public of the revised NPDES permit conditions
applicable to Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC and to announce the decision that Blue Ridge
Paper Products, LLC was no longer eligible to continue the color variance under the Clean Water
Act. Commissioner Carter seconded the motion. Chair Deerhake took a roll call vote, and
the motion passed.
Chair Meiburg indicated that Commissioner Gillespie had volunteered to be the
hearing officer.
Chair Deerhake thanked Ms. Brower and Mr. Chenikov for the work they had done in
the past month to prepare for the Committee for the request.
Hearing no further comments, the meeting was adjourned.
4 of 5

5 of 5