Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0000272_Draft Hearing Officer Report_20220401INTRODUCTION Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC (d/b/a Evergreen Packaging) is authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the Blue Ridge Paper Products Wastewater Treatment Plant, off Highway 215 (175 Main Street), Canton, Haywood County, NC to receiving waters designated as the Pigeon River, French Broad River Basin, in accordance with effluent limitations as well as a variance from the state's narrative water quality color standard. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Division of Water Resources (DWR) DEQ-DWR has concluded that the variance from the narrative provision at 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (12), historically interpreted as an instream true color value of 50 platinum cobalt units (PCU), is no longer necessary for Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC. Significant improvements to the instream concentrations of color in the Pigeon River, combined with specific limits on color and an updated reevaluation regarding the narrative provision and protection of the designated uses, support removal of the variance. BACKGROUND Summary of the Existing Color Variance and Proposed Removal of the Color Variance The effluent permit limit requirements applicable to Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC established in compliance with 1G.S. 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolinal Environmental Management Commission (EMC), and the Clean Water Act (, as amended, previously contained a variance provision to the state's narrative, aesthetic, water quality standard for color. The variance was granted July 13, 1988, by the EMC, under provisions in G.S. 143-215.3(e). Further, the variance has been continued under regulations contained in Title 15A North' Carl:^a Administrative Code `,CAC) Subchapter-02B .0226, Exemptions From Surface Water Quality Standards: Variances from applicable standards, revisions to water quality standards or site -specific water quality standards may be granted by the Commission on a case -by -case basis pursuant to G.S. 143-215.3(e), 143-214.3 or 143-214.1. A listing of existing variances shall be maintained and made available to the public by the Division. Exemptions established pursuant to this Rule shall be reviewed as part of the Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 131.10(g).- The variance included in the May 26, 2010 fi NPDES permit for Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC reflected a continued reduction in color over time, with a final annual average color limit to be subsequently revised to a value within the range of 32,000-36,000 lbs/day true color PCU, monitored at the first sampling location downstream of the effluent discharge (El), Fiberville Bridge. The daily maximum and monthly average limits were 52,000 lbs/day true color PCU and 105,250 lbs/day true color PCU, respectively. s-1 Commented [HAD1]: Title —Hearing Officer's Report for.... Commented [KE2]: Here is where the reader is told what the acronyms of DEQ and DWR used in the rest of the doc mean, I understand why these full terms are asked to be removed from rest of doc. Need to make sure those full terms are removed from rest of doc. I'd also put "(NC)" before Department and just use that acronym throughout rest of doc {Commented [KE3]: Replace North Carolina with NC (Commented [KE4]: Why can't this acronym be used? -{Commented [KE5]: I would keep full verbiage for NCAC here as it isn't addressed above - - { Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5 , Right: 0.5 ( Formatted: Font: Italic The same daily maximum and monthly average limits detailed in 2010 are proposed in the 2020 draft NPDES permit, with a specific annual average color limit of 36,000 lbs/day true color PCU. With the removal of the variance, previous language pertaining to the facility's process improvements and related reporting contained in the 2010 permit is removed. Section A. (8.) of the revised Permit requires specific monitoring, a reopener clause to address any future breakthroughs in color removal technologies, and other efforts to minimize impacts from color during critical conditions. This language was included to assure the facility's continuous efforts to minimize color impacts on the receiving stream. While 40 CFR Part 131 requires that "a State may not adopt Water Quality Standard (WQS) variances if the designated use and criterion addressed by the WQS variance can be achieved..." by implementing certain effluent measures, the permit contains technology -based effluent limits that result in achieving the same goal and are in accordance with the most recent US EPA Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) recommendations. In addition to the removal of the variance, the 2020 draft permit includes monitoring requirements that the facility meet a monthly average delta (A) Color of 50 PCU at the Fiberville Bridge, when the Pigeon River flow at Canton is equal or above the Monthly 30Q2 flow of 129 cubic feet per second; Division of Water ResourcesDWR has concluded that meeting the permit conditions of a delta (A) 50 PCU measurement between the upstream Canton and downstream Fiberville station will not contravene the narrative state surface water quality color standard. Previously, a Settlement Agreement between NC, Tennessee (TN), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required that the facility meet an instream color of 50 PCU at the TN/NC state line, located approximately 40 river miles below the discharge. In conclusion, after a thorough reevaluation of available science, the facility treatment controls, and the permit conditions, the removal of the variance as a permit condition and modification to the State's applicable water quality standards is recommended by Division of Water ResourcesDWR (DWR) staff. The removal and discontinuance of the variance is considered, under the Clean Water Act, to be a change to applicable NC surface water quality standards, requiring public notice/hearing and consideration by the CommissionEMC. Consistent with a provision contained in the 2001 variance action by the state, which states, "IOUs variance shall extend for an indefmite period of time, subject to consideration during the water quality standards triennial reviews. Any modification or termination based thereon shall be subjected to the public hearing process required by [NC G.S. 143-215.3(e)," a public hearing process is required by State and Federal regulations to terminate the variance for Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC. Lastly, the results of the process must be submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review and action. Reevaluation Rationale The Division of Water ResourcesDWR believes that through the past diligent application of advanced and innovative technology, akin to a "Pollutant Minimization Plan", according to 40 CFR Part 131.14 (b)(1)(ii)(A)(3) and a reevaluation under the requirements of 40 CFR Part 131.14 (b)(1)(v), the facility has achieved compliance with the intention of the NC narrative standard at 15A NCAC 02B .0211 and is no longer eligible to continue the variance. The color s-2 `Commented [HAD6]: Should this be moved so all of the limits of the current draft permit are in one place?...see next continent... Commented [KE7]: Make sure Tennessee appears as TN in rest of doc. Commented [HAD8]: This seems out of place. See structuring comment above. Commented [HAD9]: Consider restructuring these three paragraphs: A paragraph describing the requirements of the old color variance. A paragraph summarizing monitoring/compliance with the old permit/variance and touching on the settlement agreement, which presumably they are in compliance with. A paragraph describing the limits in the current draft permit without the variance with an emphasis on the similarity with what was previously required —and clearly describing what is no longer required as a result of removing the variance. Commented [KE10R9]: It flows based on introducing 2010 lbs/day limits, followed by proposed 2020 permit limits Commented [KE11]: "NC" was asked to be removed above 1 before G.S. but not here? J deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes shall include substances that cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines, as described in 40 CFR 110.3(a)-(b), incorporated by reference including subsequent amendments and editions.... This material is available, free of charge, at: http://www.ecfr.gov/;" Each of the narrative standard components was evaluated to ensure no color -related impairments had occurred for any designated uses in this segment of the Pigeon River: 1) Public Health Protection - NC public health advisories are provided to protect people from exposures to Contaminates Jin the water. No advisories Ihave been issued related to color, as color is not associated with adverse human health effects. Additionally, as recreation levels have notably increased (see Item 2 below), the public values the health benefits that recreation in and on the river provides. 2) Secondary Recreation - The Pigeon River in NC is frequently used for recreation. Although the waterbody is not currently classified for primary recreation, according to Smoky Mountain Outdoors Rafting, the Pigeon River was ranked in 2015 as the #3 most visited among the top whitewater rafting rivers in the U.S. by American Outdoors Association, stating that "the river has experienced a major environmental recovery over the years, and is now home to a flourishing ecosystem,". American Outdoors Association stated, in its 2018 Rafting Use Trends Update (data from 2017), that the Pigeon River was the [third highest rated river and that: "[ Use on the Class II Pigeon River in Tennessee near the nation's most visited National Park, grew more than 1000% from 17,337 visits in 1995 to 202,874 visits in 2016. ,]Use was down on the Pigeon in 2017 due to declines in area tourism because of the wildfires in Gatlinburg, TN.: Therefore, the record at this time reflects use of the water for recreational purposes has increased and recent color concentration data indicates lower concentrations since that time period, demonstrating the water quality continues to support use of the water for recreational purposes, relative to color. (Source: https://www.americaoutdoors.org/rafting-use-trends-2018- update/ and https://www.smokymountainrafting.com/blog/whitewater-rafting-tnnessee/top- whitewater-rafting-rivers/ ) 3) Aquatic Life and Wildlife Protection NEDWR maintains a monitoring site on the Pigeon River that lies downstream of Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC. This site has been sampled 15 times over the past 35 years. EPT Richness Index (E= Ephemeroptera, P= Plecoptera, T= Tricoptera) estimates water quality by the relative abundance of three major orders of stream insects that have low tolerance to water pollution. EPT can be expressed as a s-3 narrative water quality standard definition from 15A NCAC 02B .0211(12) Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C Waters is as follows: "(12) Oils, deleterious substances, or`olored or other wastes: only such amounts as --(Formatted: Font: Italic shall not render the waters injurious to public_health, „secondary recreation, or togquatic Formatted: Underline life and wildlifei_or,adversely affect the palatability of fish aesthetic quality or impair 't Formatted: Font: Italic the waters for any designated uses. For the purpose of implementing this Rule, oils, \\\\ Underline r0 \ Formatted: Font: Italic, Underline °1p\ f Formatted: Font: Italic, Underline Formatted: Underline e\ o � Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Underline Formatted: Font: Italic, Underline tFormatted: Underline Formatted: Font: Italic, Underline Formatted: Underline Formatted: Font: Italic, Underline Formatted: Font: Italic Commented [HAD12]: Contaminants? Commented [KE13R12]: This is same exact language from "Reevaluation NPDES... Color Variance 2020" Word doc Commented [HAD14]: Does public health advisories include fish consumption advisories? Commented [KE15R14]: This is same exact language from "Reevaluation NPDES...Color Variance 2020" Word doc Commented [KE16R14]: KH said to consult with Cam McNutt Commented [HAD17]: In what sense —difficulty of rapids, number of trips? Commented [KE18R17]: It was ranked 3'a of top 10 U.S. rafting rivers in 2017 by popularity percentage of the sensitive orders to the total taxa found. In 2017, eighteen EPT taxa were collected at the benthic monitoring site at State Road 1642 and the assessment indicated that water quality in the Pigeon River at this site has improved steadily since advancements were made to the paper mill in the early 1990's. The assessment noted that while in -stream macroinvertebrate habitat is relatively poor, the fact that riffles were mostly lacking and riparian inputs were low was a causative factor. Additionally, high water temperatures and a high specific conductance in -stream were noted in 2017 as a cause for the ratings. The color of the stream was not noted as a reason for the benthic impairment. The benthic water quality at this site appears to hover near the Fair to Good -Fair cusp with the 2017 rating of Fair just 1 EPT taxon shy of a Good -Fair rating. The previous rating in 2012 was also on the cusp of a Good -Fair rating. is also a cusp rating. With the advent of long-lived taxa present in the stream (stoneflies), it appears that water quality here is stable. Biological studies conducted by the University of Tennessee -Commented [HAD19]: just trying to clarify which cusp 1 in 2005 and 2012 concluded -Commented [KE20]: change Tennessee to TN that the Pigeon River has a balanced and indigenous fish community and a diverse and healthy macroinvertebrate community "below the mill's discharge." Scientific studies indicate that stream color concentrations below 100 color units have no effect on health of aquatic organisms (NCASI Special Report 9407, Human Perception and Biological Impacts of Kraft Mill Effluent Color, June 1994). The State of Tennessee has identified the return of the sensitive species, River - Run Walleye. Its reappearance is an indicator of high water quality. The Pigeon River has also become a trophy smallmouth bass fishery. The facility submitted a "Balanced and Indigenous Populations (BIP)" study related to a federal Section 316(a) temperature variance study to— DWR in 2014 that supports the same conclusions of a diverse and healthy community. NC-DWR staff biologists concurred with the assessment, further supporting that aquatic life and wildlife are being adequately protected. (See Item 6, below) 4) Palatability of Fish - Color is not a parameter associated with fish palatability and is therefore not applicable for this discussion. 5) Aesthetic Quality - The interpretation of color as an aesthetic impact, while subjective, has been 1epeatedly ]studied often -since the initial variance was granted. Evaluating the aesthetic component of color depends on personal preferences and perceptions, vision characteristics, background light conditions, natural settings, bottom substrate, and previous personal experiences. This difficulty lead DWR to attempt to translate the narrative standard to a numeric (measurable/quantifiable) value. In the early 1980's, the EPA interpreted the-NC's narrative color standard as an instream standard of 50 Platinum -Cobalt Units. This number was based on the ability of the average observer to detect instream color. However, detection/perception of colored water, [even above 50 PCU], is not necessarily objectionable to the observer, so the EPA interpretation was a conservative read of the rule, the evaluation of existing conditions discussion in the next section for more discussion on guantif ing e, Ior hovel i. th. do . n ludo thatMonitoring shows that - at current permit or instream levels, the 1ischarge does not affect the aesthetic value and that the proposed limits ensure ongoing compliance.- (see the evaluation of existing conditions discussion in the next section for more discussion on historical color levels and proposed color limits in the permit). s-4 rt Commented [HAD21]: we provide a scientific benchmark, but what is the actual instream concentration below the mill...? I understand that it is discussed later but maybe we could say something like: "As discussed below, more than 90% of samples taken at the Fiberville monitoring station from 2011-2018 showed an instream concentration of less than 50 PCU." Commented [KE22R21]: I think that this section is about aquatic life, but could add this sentence as additional info. Also change Tennessee to TN (Commented [HAD23]: My edit here was for emphasis — my understanding was that there are several studies. However, when I go to the section below (Evaluation of Existing Conditions/Permitting Rationale/Additional Protective Permit Conditions), I only see one study cited... If there is more than one study, can we concisely list the studies and dates here or maybe a footnote? Commented [KE24R23]: Remove "repeatedly" as well as "often"?? Commented [CS25R23]: Dr. Prestrude has conducted several studies. They are mentioned in the Fact Sheet. ( Commented [HAD26]: Is this true? Commented [KE27R26]: Remove "even above 50 PCU" ?? Commented [CS28R26]: It is True, Dr. Prestrude studies indicate that most observers believe that colot around 100-110 PCU is acceptable. Commented [HAD29]: This paragraph sets forth 50 PCU as the benchmark and then jumps to the conclusion that the permit and instream levels do not impact aesthetic value. Commented [KE30R29]: Not sure this added verbiage is contextually correct (Commented [CS31R29]: Agree with Elizabeth, 6) Impairment - The Pigeon River is currently rated as "impaired" on the Clean Water Act required Section 303(d) list for benthic macroinvertebrates. As outlined in Item 3, above, the color of the water is not associated with this impairment. In 2019, the facility submitted a "Balanced and Indigenous Populations (BIP)" assessment under Section 316(a) of the Act to the DivisionDWR. While that BIP evaluates effects of the temperature of the water and its effect on the stream biological community, it provides insight into the stream condition. The fish data noted "good, and improving diversity" and while the benthos data indicates some impact from the thermal discharge, it was determined that the `Balanced and Indigenous" threshold, defined by 40 CFR Part 125.71(c), was met. Evaluation of Existing Conditions/ Permitting Rationale/ Additional Protective Permit Conditions bifter removing data collected below the 30Q2 flow condition], an analysis of instream color values recorded from 2011 — 2018 indicates more than 90% of the individual samples at the Fiberville monitoring station are less than 50 PCU. 50 PCU was the concentration previously interpreted by EPA as the value which necessitated the variance. This quantitative comparison provides documentation of the daily instream conditions over the recent period of record relative to the loadings which have been implemented. Thz�,erefoF ,e The color variance is no longer necessary because the monitoring shows that 50 PCUs has been consistently met downstream of the discharge and the proposed instream and effluent color limits in the 2020 permit ensure ongoing compliance] with the state narrative color standard. operating the 2020 permit at the osthetic-r rr tiNe f r eol ran no 1.,nger o o the a....he boon.- o LThe March 4, 2019 report'entitled "Analysis of Color Concentrations in the Pigeon River" (AquAeTer, Inc.), includes a data assessment from July of 2010 to December of 2018, and indicates that the "monthly 30Q2 analyses represent a precise analysis of the same hydrologic event for each month of the year and do not introduce bias in the analyses due to multiple months with different hydrologic and meteorologic events not related to the same statistical event." This agrees is consistent with the state's current water quality standards regulations contained in 15A NCAC 02B .0206 (a)(5) that aesthetic quality "shall be protected using the minimum average flow for a period of 30 consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in two years (30Q2 flow)." The DivisionDWR proposes in Part I, Section A. (1.), Footnote 16, that the permit condition require the facility to meet a monthly average A 50 PCU (the difference between monthly average upstream and monthly average downstream true color) at the Fiberville bridge when the flow in the Pigeon River is equal or above monthly 30Q2. By meeting this condition, the Division DWR has determined that the facility will not contravene the state narrative color standard. The annual average, monthly average, and daily maximum color limits (measured as True Color) were established in accordance with the Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) recommendations for the 2010 permit renewal and will be continued in the revised permit. The TRW was chaired by the EPA and consisted of independent experts, EPA experts, and s-5 ( Commented [HAD32]: As required by rule...? 1 jCommented [KE33R32]: Could add "as consistent with 15A NCAC 02B .0206(ax5)" as noted on page S-11 -(Commented [HAD34]: Is this right? Commented [KE35R34]: I would want Sergei to review this statement... tt Commented [KE36R34]: Commented [CS37R34]: I agree with this statement. Commented [HAD38]: See comment above —I thought there were multiple studies but we only cite one in this section. Commented [KE39R38]: See my response to his comment above representatives from North Carolina and Tennessee. DWR The Division expects that concentrations similar to those experienced over the 2011-2018 timeframe will continue to be experienced instream, and thus designated uses will continue to be met, relative to color, assuming representative flow conditions. To ensure comparable data is available at the next permit reissuance: Section A. (5.) of the permit, "Instream Monitoring Special Condition", requires the facility to report monthly average true color concentration and the difference between monthly average true color concentration between UP and DN1 (A Color). All instream samples collected shall be representative of the Pigeon River and Big Creek, respectively. The facility shall meet the A Color of 50 Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU) when the Pigeon River flow at Canton is equal or above Monthly 30Q2 of 129 cfs. Samples taken when the river flow at Canton is less than 129 cfs will not be included in the average for that month. Section A. (8.) of the revised Permit includes requirements for "Color Analysis and Compliance Special Condition". These conditions establish monitoring for color upstream and at three locations downstream to assure ensure compliance with the water quality standard is maintained. The permittee shall not increase the mill's pulp production capacity during the term of the permit, unless the permittee can demonstrate that the increased production can be achieved while reducing color loading. Increased production may warrant a revision to the permit. TO further protect the recreational designated use of the river, major maintenance outages may - not be scheduled during periods of lowest river flow and higher recreational use in the river (June, July, August, and September). The month of October cannot alsowas not be included in this condition since the NCDOL saf ty reguiremnnt domana thatrequires inspections of the recovery boiler to be conducted during September -October, and the boiler can be inspected only during an outage. The permit requires the facility to conduct a technical review of color removal technologies once during the permit cycle and provide the report to DEQ-DWR with the renewal application. The NPDES Permit shall be subject to reopening in order to modify the color requirements based upon any breakthrough in color removal technologies. Such breakthroughs shall be brought to the NPDES Committee for consideration, by Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC and Division of Water ResourcesDWR; as soon as they are discovered. Conclusions Noting the successful technology -based effluent improvements, the reexamination of the data gathered on water quality conditions in the river, the increased use of the river for recreational purpose, and favorable biological examinations of the river, the facility requested removal of the color variance applicable to their permit. Based on the evidence and data presented, the -Division of Water ResourcesDWR believes that the current Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC discharge meets the North Carolina narrative color standard, and that the facility does not qualify for a continuance of the variance under regulations in 40 CFR Part 131, as the original variance was written for an expected limited timeframe and purpose and the state may not adopt a variance if the criterion can be achieved. The DivisionDWR believes that through the past diligent s-6 Commented [KE40]: Replace state names with NC and TN. J Commented [HAD41]: To track the format above, what is the permit condition citation? Commented [KE42R41]: You mean the PROPOSED permit condition citations? Commented [KE43R41]: Ask Sergie for A,, \\ vv fCommented [KE46R45]: See comment directly above Commented [KE47R45]: Ask Sergei for Commented [CS48R45]: This requirement is listed in the Permit Special Condition A. (8.) Commented [CS44R41]: This requirement is listed in the Permit Special Condition A. (8.) Commented [HAD45]: To track the format above, what is the permit condition citation? application of advanced and innovative technology, akin to a "Pollutant Minimization Plan", according to 40 CFR Part 131.14 (b)(1)(ii)(A)(3) and a reevaluation under the requirements of 40 CFR Part 131.14 (b)(1)(v), the facility has achieved compliance narrative water quality standard at 15A NCAC 02B .0211 and is no longer eligible to continue the variance. PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND COIVIV ENTS RECEIVED In accordance with state and federal regulations, the proposed removal of the color variance is effectively a change to water quality standards and subject to public hearing. The NN -EMC last accepted comments from the public on this variance (and other state approved standards and variances) in July of 2018. Through that process, tThere were no substantive comments received and no negative comments relating to the color variance. Under 40 CFR Part 131.14 (b)(1)(v), the state has reevaluated the Color Variance, examined the highest attainable condition using all existing and readily available information, and has provided notification and a public hearing (as noted below) to obtain public input on this reevaluation, to confirm the finding that the present condition for color corresponds to meeting the applicable criterion at 15A NCAC 02B .0211(12), and that a variance is no longer required for this facility. Responses from the publicPublic comments will be submitted -provided provided to the EMC for the purpose of evaluating the approval of the removal of the variance provision from the permit applicable to Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC (d/b/a Evergreen Packaging), Permit Number NC0000272. Upon completion of that process, and certification under 40 CFR Part 132.5(b)(2) from the State's Attorney General's office that proper notification has been given, the results of the EMC decisions will be submitted to the -EPA for review and action. In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, a public hearing was held on April 14th, 2021, regarding the proposed removal of the color variance along with the proposed NPDES permit. An in -person hearing was originally proposed for January 20th, 2021, but was rescheduled as Tennessee legislators needed requested time to work with their constituents in order to address their concerns as well as possibly visit sampling sites downstream of Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC. Notice of the proposals and the original hearing was published in the December 1st, 2020 North Carolina Register (Volume 35, Issue 11), and notice of the proposals and rescheduled hearing was published in the February 16, 2021 North Carolina Register (Volume 35, Issue 16) (public notices attached as pages xx through xx). On January 15th, 2021 and April 8th, 2021, a news release about the public hearing was sent to media statewide as well as parties who voluntarily signed up to receive it, such as attorneys, businesses, and citizens (news releases attached as pages xx through xx). In addition, a social media post, which contained the same information as the January 15, 2021 news release, was made -posted on the-NCDEQ's Department of Environmental Quality's Twitter and FaceBook page twice on January 15, 2021 and once on s well as once on each day consisting of January 16, 17, 19, and 21, 2021. On January 27, 2021, an announcement of the public hearing was sent to the DWRPublicNotices List serve (email to list serve attached as page xx). Information about the public hearing was also published on January 27, 2021 in the€lsheville Citizen -Times and The (Waynesville) Mountaineer, �Canda along with The Smoky Mountain News on January 27, 2021 (affidavits for these publications attached as pages xx-xx). s-7 — --( Commented [KE49]: Need CSRRB input on this issue Commented [HAD50]: I'm not sure I follow. Are we just saying that there were no comments on the color variance as part of the overarching triennial review process? In 2018, we didn't solicit comment on potentially removing the color variance, right? In other words, what happened in 2018 doesn't seem all that relevant given that we had a recent public notice/comment specifically on the removal of the color variance. Commented [KE51R50]: I've remove"through that process" as I think the statement only applies to the formal comment period. This is just background info to let folks know what transpired during the last time this variance appeared as part of a rulemaking (2018) process, no negative comments or substantive comments re: keeping the existing variance at that time were received. Formatted: Font: Italic - - H Formatted: Font: Italic (Formatted: Font: Italic Commented [KE52]: This shouldn't be italicized Mr. Charles Carter, a member of the Environmental Management CommissionEMC, served as hearing officer for the portion of the public hearing concerning the proposed removal of the color variance. 97 people registered online to attend the public hearing and 93 people actually attended the hearing (list of attendees and registered persons attached as pages xx - xx). Registered attendees at the hearing who provided information regarding their affiliation represented entities ranging from US EPA; water -based recreational companies, organizations, and users; academia; entertainment industry; environmental and regulatory interest groups; municipalities; farms; photography business; legal firms; consulting companies; State of Tennessee and State of North Carolina environmental agencies; citizens, residents, and property owners; the media; and Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC (d/b/a Evergreen Packaging). General information about the hearing as well as the proposed permit and proposed removal of the color variance was followed by DWR presentations with detailed information about the proposals. Public comments on the proposals were taken after the DWR presentations (summary of verbal comments attached as pages xx - xx)and ^ nderGtanding of the color e - - "Issues Raised in Comments" section directly below). Of the 10 speakers who specifically mentioned the topic of the color variance, four representatives from the facilitylof these speakers stated that they supported the removal of the proposed color variance, ana green Packaging. Another speaker, a river guide, stated that "It is not feasible for us to be able to continue if the paper mill is allowed to increase the color variance... ;" this verbiage did not provide a clearly understandable stance on the color variance, as an "increase" in the color proposed removal of the color variance. The remaining five -six lof these 10 speakers stated that they „ere against the re^ ovalopposed removal of the proposed color variance and represented the following entities: Rapid Expeditions Rafting, Rip Roaring Whitewater Adventures, Clean Water for North Carolina, Clean Water Expected in East Tennessee, and Cooke County Tennessee Resident/River Guide. Written comments were accepted for the proposed NPDES permit and proposed removal of the color variance from December 1st, 2020 through April 30th, 2021. 64 comments that specifically mentioned the topic of the color variance were received_; these 61 lettersThose public comments, including any attachments that mention the topic of color variance, are provided as pages xx through xx except for Attachment C "Footnote Citations" to one comment from SELC, which is available upon request given it is too large for inclusion in this document. The 64 comments exclude duplicate emailed and post -mailed comments, but do not exclude multiple emailed comments made by any person. In addition, written comments made by people who also provided verbal comments at the hearing are not excluded from this document. Lastly, dire.tly oelowj Three and sixpf the 64 written comments stated a supportive and unclear stance regarding the proposed removal of the color variance, respectively. The three letters supporting the proposed removal of the color variance were received from Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC and TN residents. The six letters that did not clearly state a stance regarding the proposed removal of the color variance, meaning the authors of those letters did not state whether they were for or against the proposed removal of the color variance, also contained questions, and these letters were s-8 Commented [KE53]: The reason this appears here and in the next paragraph is to let the reader know from the get -go that many of the comments are based on misunderstanding. -I Commented [KE54]: Not sure if these reps were with the facility specifically or the company Commented [HAD55]: This early part is essentially a high level overview of for -against. I moved this specific comment to the section dealing with this issue. Commented [KE56R55]: Need the sentence starting with "another speaker" to understand this speaker did not provide a clear stance. Also providing an unclear stance is NOT the same as misunderstanding what a variance is Commented [HAD57]: I think this then becomes 6. 4 company reps plus 1 non -stance speaker = 5, and 10-5 = 5 so keep 5 here. (Commented [HAD58]: ? Commented [KE59R58]: See the use of respectively at the end of the sentence. received from representatives of the following parties: Tennessee citizens/residents; Environmental Review, Inc.; a NC farmer; and Keep Cocke County (TN) Beautiful. Examples of questions and statements with misinformation] and/or unclear stances regarding the proposed removal of the color variance from these letters follow: • What would make NC think removing a color variance would help TN? It doesn't. It does nothing at all for us. • What in the world would TN gain out of lifting this color variance? Did you get pressure? Political pressure? Shareholder pressure? Why in the world would NC do this? Perhaps you could explain it to me in a way that would make sense to Tennesseans? That would be appreciated. • I can not fathom why you would remove the "color variance" protections from the permit. If the company is doing what it is supposed to and being a good neighbor, they should be able to meet or even exceed the testing standards. Instead they want it removed, this shows me that the company does not want to preserve the waterways and does not want testing. • It is good that the paper plant has improved the technology to the point of convincing the NCDEQ that removing the variance for color would be equivalent, but then why does the proposed draft not reduce the color PCU limit? • Why drop the color variance and allow the plant more latitude with self monitoring and not ask for concessions with temperature variance as well? • Part of the new permit removes the color variance, essentially finding that the color of the river is normal and acceptable. It is not.L The remaining 55 of the 64 written comments opposing the removal of the color variance were authored by representatives of the following groups: • Recreational water users, clubs and outfitters, including river guides, Rip -Roaring Whitewater Adventures, Nantahala Outdoor Center, Nolichucky Outdoor Learning Institute, American Canoe Association, ACE Kayaking School, Appalachian Paddling Enthusiasts, Beaver Creek Kayak Club, Bluff City Canoe Club, Chota Canoe Club, West Tennessee Canoe and Kayak Club, Foothills Paddling Club, American Whitewater, East Tennessee Whitewater Club, and Smoky Mountain Hiking Club • Municipalities such as Cooke County, TN; Mayor of Campbell, TN; Association of Tennessee Valley Governments; Sevier County (TN) Mayor; and East Tennessee Local Workforce Development Board • TN state agencies including the Department of Environment and Conservation, and TN Environmental Council • Environmental Interest Groups such as Clean Water Expected for East Tennessee, Clean Water for North Carolina, Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning, Harpeth Conservancy, Tennessee Scenic River Association, Conservation Fisheries, Inc., and Environmental Review, Inc. • An Engineering company • The Literacy Council • Southern Environmental Law Center • Citizens and residents in TN and NC s-9 {Commented [KE60]: {Commented [KE61]: Commented [HAD62]: Like above —I would just delete this discussion and move the comments to the "misunderstandings of the color variance" section Commented [KE63R62]: See comment above, i.e. Misunderstanding is NOT the same as an unclear stance Issues Raised in Comments Misunderstandings Regarding a Color Variance VeManyseveral comments indicated a misunderstanding about variances and the impacts of removing the variance. For example, some stated: konceming the definition of a variance and the impacts of removing a variance, as evidenced by views such as the following: • It is not feasible for us to be able to continue if the paper mill is allowed to increase the color variance • Keep the variance until the water quality standards are met • Variance standards are to still be required • Water quality (color) improvement (needed) before variance for color dropped • (I) oppose lifting restrictions on the color variant discharged into the river • The variance ensures the river doesn't get more contaminated and removal of variance loosens regulations/protections on color pollution • A new color variance should be denied • The variance needs to be stricter and a step toward improving discharged water quality from the current color variance requirements • No monitoring requirements for color variance (should be) removed • (I want) no removal of standards Response]: It appeared that many commenters do not understand that Aa variance is an allowance to not meet a water quality standardit is not a water quality standard itself.; A varianceit is not a form of water quality protection, and it contains no water quality restrictions or requiremens. The Seeon l^ enter a^ net seem t^ „nderstana that the NC narrative water quality standard for color that -has been historically interpreted as 50 PCU and is being consistently being met at the Fiberville monitoring station, just downstream of the facility's discharge. met currently by Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC, and thus the state cannot continue the issuance of the variance pPer 40 CFR Part 131.14: "a state may not adopt Water Quality Standard variances if the designated use and criterion addresses by the variance can be achieved by implementing technology -based limits " In [addition, several commenters did not seem to understand that removal of the variance means that the narrative color standard and the facility's ` permit conditions must be met and continue to be met_, olor .. ill app1., to t e f ility -f Formatted: Font: Italic Disagreement with DWR's conclusion that 50 PCU has been achieved in the river, including Several comments disagreed with DWR's conclusion that 50 PCU has been achieved in the river. For xample, some stated: s-10 Commented [KE64]: I would change suggested language to make rust "variances" singular and change "the" to "a" before 2'° variance. Also "some" is a bit too general, so may be just say "Examples of comments that indicated such misunderstanding follow:" Commented [HAD65]: Trying to come up with a consistent format to be replicated throughout fFormatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Commented [HAD66]: Many different ways to approach this, but just suggesting something that clearly transitions from the summary of the public comments to DWR's response to those comments. Commented [HAD67]: but the variance did include requirements? Commented [KE68R67]: I'm not sure what is being asked. Also need to keep "Secondly" to start the next sentence. Commented [KE69]: The removal of this text and replacement by text just above it changes the meaning of the sentence. Commented [KE70]: I'd like to keep last part of last sentence to hammer home that color restrictions will still apply to the facility Commented [CS71R70]: I agree with Betsy. J -f Formatted: Font: Italic Commented [KE72]: "some" is abit too general, so may be just say "Examples of comments that indicated this view point follow:" • The facility's discharge is out of compliance with the NC narrative water quality standards, as it is not achieving 50 true color units or lower instream at the end of the discharge pipe on a daily basis. • Disagreement with the practice of averaging annual color values, as information regarding the river states that the average of all color data points from 2014-2018 during all flow conditions is 41 color units, and thus, "long-term compliance" of the NC color standard has been met. The practice of averaging values with such a wide range allows instream values to often exceed the water quality standard by a considerable margin. • North Carolina's handling of flow in the permit gives the appearance that the agency believes the color criterion does not apply if the flow is below the 30Q2 flow. If that is the case, we (TDEC) do not agree with either that interpretation of criteria or that the variance should be removed on that basis. • EPA's ECHO database indicates that Blue Ridge is not in compliance with its permit, but it does not provide any information on specific violations. Additionally, the permit fact sheet acknowledges noncompliance with color limits. TDEC requests specific compliance data covering the past permit cycle. Is this noncompliance due to violations of permit limits or is it related to other compliance issues such as failure to submit reports? In our view, even if the permit were protective, noncompliance would erode the argument that the water quality standard is currently being met. Response: The current NPDES permit requires monitoring be conducted at the Fiberville monitoring station. In addition, the Discharge Monitoring Reports elearly-demonstrate that effluent color is fairly consistent with low variability with an exception of [accidents. Furthermore, after removing data collected below the 30Q2 flow condition, an analysis of instream color values recorded from 2011 — 2018 indicates more than 90% of the individual samples at the Fiberville monitoring station are less than 50 PCU. As described above, "monthly 30Q2 analyses represent a precise analysis of the same hydrologic event for each month of the year and do not introduce bias in the analyses due to multiple months with different hydrologic and meteorologic events not related to the same statistical event." This approach is consistent with the state's current water quality standards regulations contained in 15A NCAC 02B .0206 (a)(5) that aesthetic quality "shall be protected using the minimum average flow for a period of 30 consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in two years (30Q2 flow)." 50 PCU was the concentration previously interpreted by EPA as the value which necessitated the variance. indicates that the "monthly 30Q2 analyses represent a precise analysis of the same hydrologic with different hydrologic and meteorologic events not related to the same statistical event." This ., it the stag' current water quality standards regulations contained in 15A NCAC 02B period of 30 consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in two years (30Q2 flow)." s-11 Commented [HAD73]: Can we say anything about the frequency —hopefully infrequent- or provide some context of these "accidents." Commented [KE74R73]: Perhaps remove "with an exception of accidents"? Commented [KE75R73]: Ask Asheville RO about per KH J Commented [KE76]: Why move all this text here when it is 1 directly below? J Commented [HAD77]: Is there anything more we can say about EPA's process (thorough, comprehensive, peer reviewed, etc) that indicates that 50PCU is an appropriate number? Commented [KE78R77]: I'd need to consult with Sergei on this issue and/or EPA. However, EPA's reasoning is provided elsewhere in this document, i.e. in 2 places where aesthetic quality is discussed. Commented [CS79R77]: EPA decision was based on the ability of the average observer to detect color at the level of 40 PCU, they added 10PCU of the background color and came up with the 50 PCU as an interpretation of NC standard. This decision was upheld by the Federal District court. Decision is attached. TDWR lists all the violations that occurred during the review period in the above -mentioned Fact Sheet. During the review period of 08/2013 through 09/2018, DWR issued two NOVs to the facility for violating [the color limit. the f llo i fi NOV (not;ee , Fviol tion) havo bee. i oa_ 11 for violating the fecal coliform limit, one for violating the BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) ' Disagreement with DWR's Reevaluation of the State Color Narrative Water Quality Standard Quality Standards for Class C Waters were expressed as follows: �) Some comments express concern about DWR's reevaluation of one or more of the components of the narrative water quality standard for color. For example, some of the comments related to public health protection were: Public Health Protection: Sample Comments • Although no public health advisory related to color in North Carolina, there is one in Tennessee for color. • Often professional river guides deal with rashes and reactions to the many chemicals that comprise the color pollution. • Color is an indication of impurities in the water which rightly concern river recreationists. For us, river water is drinking water... • Color is comprised of toxic chemicals. It is a public health issue for the hundreds of thousands of boaters who are yearly exposed to full body contact with its toxic waters. Response: NC public health advisories are provided to protect people from exposures to contaminates in the water. No advisories have been issued related to color, as color (itself) is not associated with adverse human health effects. Additionally, as recreation levels have notably increased, the public values the health benefits that recreation in and on the river provides. Lastly, the river's color consists primarily of lignins and tannins, which are natural compounds. There are numerous black water streams in North Carolina with very high concentration of lignins and tannins, much higher than in the Pigeon River, and black water streams can support fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Commented [HAD80]: Any helpful context we can provide for these NOVs? Commented [KE81R80]: I'd have to get Sergei's assistance for this issue. Also need to keep meaning of NOV (Notices of Violations) in the sentence. ( Commented [KE82R80]: Karen said ask Sergei Commented [CS83R80]: I would recommend contacting Landon Davidson. I am not involved in any enforcement decisions. Formatted: Font: Italic Commented [KE84]: I'd like to keep this sentence and not put the additional sentences before each topic; this first sentence introduces the subjects below, so no need to add the additional sentences before each topic., Formatted: No bullets or numbering ( Commented [HAD85]: containants? Commented [KE86R85]: See my prior response on this issue. - --( Commented [KE87]: Use NC for state name 2-) Some of the comments related to secondary recreation were: Secondary Recreation: .- - - Formatted: No bullets or numbering • Level of color in the river is, in fact, strongly associated with the extent of odor, bad taste of the water ... from the Mill's discharge. • As a paddler who canoed downstream of the whitewater Pigeon River section near Hartford TN, not long ago, I had to cut short a canoeing trip due to the low visibility of obstacles in the stream caused by dark color and particulates in the water column. Response: American Outdoors Association stated, in its 2018 Rafting Use Trends Update (data from 2017), that the Pigeon River was the third highest rated river and that "Use on the Class II Pigeon River in Tennessee near the nation's most visited National Park, grew more than 1000% from 17,337 visits in 1995 to 202,874 visits in 2016." The Div ^^^'G DWR's employees from s-12 - -( Commented [HAD88]: in what sense? Commented [KE89R88]: See prior response on this issue. Use TN for Tennessee the central office and the regional office have also observed people fishing below the discharge on numerous occasions in the past. Thus, over the past approximately two decades, use of the water for recreational purposes has increased and recent color concentration data indicates lower concentrations during that time period, demonstrating the water quality continues to support use of the water for recreational purposes, relative to color. Further information pertaining to the state's reevaluation of this component of the NC color narrative water quality standard is addressed on page s-xx. 3) .- - - { Formatted: No bullets or numbering 4) Some of the comments related to aquatic life and wildlife protection were:Aquatic-Life-and -- - - { Formatted: Normal, Wildlife Protection: Sample Comments • The permit rationale states that the documented aquatic life impacts are likely due to other pollutants. A more detailed discussion of the biological data including direct comparisons to upstream or reference conditions is requested. • We understand that a University of Tennessee study concluded that the river near Canton supported a `Balanced and Indigenous" aquatic life population, as required by its 316(a) temperature variance, but North Carolina lists the river in the same segment as impaired for aquatic life support. Response: DWR's 2017 assessment at the benthic monitoring site downstream of Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC BRPP indicated that water quality at this site has improved steadily since advancements were made to the paper mill in the early 1990's; and the color of the stream was not noted as a reason for the benthic impairment at that site. North Carolina has a significant number of black water streams with color level much higher than 100 PCU due to the natural presence of lignins and tannins, and the color alone does not impair aquatic life in these streams. In addition, NCASI 1994 studies indicate that stream color concentrations below 100 color units have no effect on health of aquatic organisms. ThirdlyAlso, the facility submitted a "Balanced and Indigenous Populations (BIP)" study related to a federal Section 316(a) temperature variance study to NN -DWR in 2014 that supports the conclusion of a diverse and healthy community and; N -DWR staffbiologists concurred with the assessment., further supporting] that aquatic life and wildlife are being adequately protected. The facility is also has consistently Ipassingpassed Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests during the last 5+ years. In March of 1991, the EPA published "Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based Toxics Control." This document states that there is a very strong correlation (88%) between receiving water impacts, including impact to macroinvertebrates, and whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests. Since the effluent from Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC comprises significant portion of the Pigeon River flow, the permit has a WET test requirement at the effluent concentration of 90%. Sinee-the-fac-ilitny-lias-an-exeellent-eomplianee-historyTwe-ean River's aquatic life and wildlife protection. In commenting on the "2014 "Canton Mill Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the Pigeon River" (BISS), the NC's Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) WRC provided comments regarding the "2014 "Canton Mill Balanced and Indigenous Species Study for the downstream of the discharge;" NC WRCbut did not xete-identify any issues or recommendations s- 13 No bullets or numbering l Commented [KE90]: Use NC for state name Commented [KE91]: This sentence helps to deliver home the message of this paragraph and would like to keep it Commented [HAD92]: What constitutes consistent passing of WET tests? Have they ever failed a WET test? Commented [KE93R92]: WSS would need to answer this question. Commented [KE94R92]: Ask Chris V to help with this response per I{H. Perhaps change nomenclature of "consistently?" Commented [CS95R92]: During the review period (5 years) they passed all the WET tests. During the last renewal they also passed all the WET tests. I think that they always passed WET tests since late 90s. Commented [KE96]: Why remove this sentence? Commented [CS97R96]: I think this sentence should remain. Commented [KE98]: Information is lost in the rewording of this sentence that is important, i.e. what the study is about and what is in the sections regarding issues and recommendations Commented [CS99R98]: I agree with Betsy. related to color in the river in their comment, including in sections regarding issues or . In addition, the threshold for Balanced and Indigenous Population (BIP) as defined in the EPA Guidance has been met based on the conclusions of ; this conclusion has been made by a world -renown fisheries biologist Dr. Coutant; and DWR biologists agree with the his conclusion. IN-WRC also stated in their comment that "Improvements in aquatic habitat allowed reintroductions of some extirpated fishes in the watershed." and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. submitted a public stated the f Ilowin i. their- cen mentcomment stating that it: "We -have participated with UTK, TWRA, TVA and others to restore aquatic wildlife, eliminated by past pollution, as the river recovered to the point it could again support the restored species.... [e]Efforts began with Gilt Darters and included many others, such as Mountain Madtoms and Tangerine Darters." Lastly, the State of Tenness0 has identified the return of the sensitive species, River Run Walleye. Further information pertaining to the state's reevaluation of this component of the NC color narrative water quality standard is addressed on page s-xx. Some of the comments related to Palatability of Fish: Sample Comments were: • (We) strongly disagree with the statement included under "Rationale for Removal of Color Variance" with the statement that "fish palatability is not a parameter associated with palatability of fish" • NC regulators should long ago have evaluated fish palatability as part of NC's narrative standard, but have simply failed to do so. Response: Color is not a parameter associated with fish palatability and is therefore not applicable for this discussion. �) Some of the comments related to aAesthetic qQuality were: • Color studies.. likely were not based on surveys of people who regularly immersed themselves in rivers or who drink/ingest the river water in question via recreation. Also, these studies are 25-30 years old. • DEQ's narrow focus on a numeric true -color standard fails to protect all aspects of "aesthetic quality..." 15A N.C. Admire Code 2B .0211(12) applies much more broadly to "colored or other wastes" that may not injure the "aesthetic quality" of the receiving waterbody...Although "aesthetic quality" certainly encompasses color, it also covers much more, including, but not limited to: presence of undesirable or nuisance aquatic life, odor, foam, and other floating debris... Response: 15A NCAC 02B (12) reads as follows: "Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability offish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses. For the purposes of considering Colors impact Ion the aesthetic component of the the ^ice of the aestheti^ compone^* of the narrative water quality standard in light of the proposed removal of the color variance, It should be noted that the perception of color depends on several [things], including: the personal preferences and perceptions, vision characteristics, background s-14 Commented [HAD100]: This seems to be sandwiched between two sentences that discuss WRC comments --suggest moving this sentence to the beginning or end. Commented [KE101R100]: This is important to have here because of the similar nomenclature of B&I Commented [KE102]: I would rather not use "it" and keep the sentence structure as is. Commented [KE103]: Replace Tennessee with "TN" - - { Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering 1 - - { Formatted: No bullets or numbering (Formatted: Font: Italic (Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5 , Right: 0.5 Commented [KE104]: I'd replace "colors impact on" with "the color portion of --(Commented [KE105]: Remove this language Commented [KE106]: Things is a really broad term; how about variables, and remove the"" and "the" before Personal light conditions, natural settings, bottom substrate, and previous personal experiences. The subjective perceptions of color is difficulty lead DWR to attempt to translate the narrative standard to a numeric (measurable/quantifiable) value, and EPA interpreted the NC narrative color standard as an instream standard of 50 Platinum -Cobalt Units. This number was based on the ability of the average observer to detect instream color, and detection/perception of colored water is not necessarily objectionable to the observer, so the EPA interpretation is overly conservative. The reevaluation concluded that, at current permit or instream levels, the discharge does not affect the aesthetic value in terms of color. Further information pertaining to the state's reevaluation of this component of the NC color narrative water quality standard is addressed on page s-xx and is supplemented by the additional following information: • The Bowater Hiwassee River Study (Prestrude and Laws, 1989) identified that color increases of 50 to 60 PCU were acceptable to observers. Since the background color concentration for Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC is 13 PCU, the downstream color concentration of 64 to 74 PCU should be acceptable to observers. The recommendation from the Bowater Study was accepted by the State of Tennessee and it established a color limit of 50 PCU above background for the Hiwassee River. • Dr. Prestrude conducted a color perception study in both Tennessee and North Carolina waters (Pigeon River). (Prestrude, (July 1996) reported that the vast majority of persons participating in the research projects considered water quality color in the receiving stream as aesthetically acceptable in the 100-110 PCU color range. 7-) Some of the comments related to ilmpairment were: Sample Comments • The upper 5 miles of the Pigeon River in Tennessee (TN06010106-001_4000) remain listed as recreationally impaired due to color from sources outside state borders. • The Pigeon River is listed on North Carolina's 2018 303(d) List as impaired. • Downstream uses (are) not being met. Response: The Pigeon River is currently rated as "impaired" on the Clean Water Act required Section 303(d) list for benthic macroinvertebrates. As mentioned above, the color of the water is not associated with this impairment. In 2019, the facility submitted a "Balanced and Indigenous Populations (BIP)" assessment under Section 316(a) of the Act to the DivisionDWR. While that BIP evaluates effects of the temperature of the water and its effect on the stream biological community, it provides insight into the stream condition. The fish data noted "good, and improving diversity" and while the benthos data indicates some impact from the thermal discharge, it was determined that the "Balanced and Indigenous" threshold, defined by 40 CFR Part 125.71(c), was ane1. `Draft Permit is not Protective Based on Monthly Data Averages, Some comments expressed concern that the draft NPDES permit is not protective based on monthly data averages. For example, some stated: including commentG Guch • The permit's reliance on monthly averages of only certain data, use of an extremely generous low -flow basis to derive limits, combined with the permit's s-15 ( Commented [HAD107]: is this the difficulty? Commented [KE108R107]: Its not just subjective perceptions. Other factors of the environment make a difference, i.e. how light or dark it is, if the substrate is sand or rock, etc. Perhaps "this difficulty" could be replaced with "These variables that affect color perception presented difficulty that lead DWR.... Commented [CS109R107]: Agree with Betsy. - - { Formatted: No bullets or numbering rCommented [HAD110]: what about the comment 1 lregarding impairent in TN --any response? J Commented [KE111R110]: I don't think we can comment on how TN impairs waters nor the uses they designate for their waters nor their standards. However, it is not impaired due to color in NC downstream of the facility.... Formatted: Font: Italic Commented [KE112]: Remove the words "some comments" and replace with "There were comments received that". Also, this sentence reads exactly as the issue stated above, so could use some variability in words/structure. Also put "Examples of comments that indicated this viewpoint follow:" instead of"For example, some stated" disregard for color levels in the river both in North Carolina and Tennessee when flows are less than 129 cfs, makes it very difficult for us to concede the point the draft permit is protective. • Target for allowable color is too high • DEQ also fails to articulate why a monthly average A50 PCU standard is a justifiable interpretation of North Carolina's narrative standard. Therefore, the new interpretation substantially weakens North Carolina's narrative water quality standards. Nor does it make sense. The color standard is meant to protect the aesthetic qualities of the river but people do not experience aesthetic qualities as a "monthly average" —they experience them in real time on a day-to-day basis. Response: According to the state rule 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a)(4) the aesthetic quality standards will be protected using 30Q2 flow, so aesthetic parameter limitations are based on the 30Q2 flows, not on the daily maximum limits and individual monthly averages. The state rules do not explicitly define what kind of 30Q2 flow shall be used and the facility provided justification to use a mMonthly 30Q2 flow as a basis for compliance determination. The lowest mMonthly 30Q2 flow at the facility is measured at 129 cfs, and this number will be used for the compliance purposes at the Fiberville bridge (0.4 miles below discharge). The-DWR reviewed flow data for 130 months beginning January 2008 and found that mMonthly aAverage flow below 129 cfs occurred 22 times, or 16.9% of the time. The DEQDWR proposes that the permit condition shall require the facility to meet the monthly average A50 PCU (the difference between monthly average upstream and monthly average downstream true color) at the Fiberville bridge when the flow in the Pigeon river is equal or above Monthly 30Q2. By meeting this condition, the facility should [not contravene the state color standard. Monthly average limit is used because the state rules require employment of the 30Q2 flow basis and 30Q2 is a monthly flow. 50 PCU was the concentration previously interpreted by EPA as the value which necessitated the variance. Lastly, the Discharge Monitoring Reports clearly demonstrates that effluent color is fairly consistent with low variability with an exception of [accidents Concerns Regarding z Color -Reducing Technologies Lire Available and No/Lessening of Future Progresssin Color (Removal) Some comments expressed concern about DWR's consideration of Comments concerning current and future technological progress in reducing color in the river. For example, some stated: o o ee na in€kid;n, fho f no., in, remarks_ • River still needs (color) improvement and removal of the color variance would lead to less (or no) future progress in removing color • DEQ's approach is problematic because it omits consideration of current color reduction technologies; agency fails to evaluate available technologies for further reductions on colored discharges s-16 -( Commented [HAD113]: is "will' too strong? Commented [HAD114]: same comment as above --what are these accidents? • 'Commented [KE115R114]: See my comment above (Commented [KE116R114]: Ask AshevilleRO about per xa n4� � Formatted: Font: Italic \ Commented [KE117]: Need to keep this issue's title to be consistent with past ones Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: Italic t Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.08 li Commented [KE118]: I'd propose changing these sentences to the following: Concerns were raised in comments about current and future technological progress in reducing color in the river. Examples of comments that indicated this concern follow: • { Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Normal Response: Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC has been evaluating color removal efforts they make at the plant and potential new technologies; and conducted reviews of color removing technologies on an annual basis during the last permit cycle. The color reduction requirements contained in the 2010 permit were derived directly from the mill's efforts to identify possible color reduction measures and from the EPA Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) 2008 report. DWQ (now DWR) participated in the TRW process that was conducted to evaluate technically, economically, and operationally feasible technologies and BMPs (Best Management Practices) that can be implemented by Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC to reduce the color discharge. The TRW evaluation was based on the reports from six independent experts, and two experts from EPA Headquarters. 4lll/of the TRW recommendations were included in the 2010 NPDES permit. The mill facility was required to evaluate several color reduction technologies, and implement those technologies that are identified as technically, operationally, and economically feasible, or identify other options that will result in similar increments of color reduction. The facility provided annual reports on the color reduction methods included in the permit, which required Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC to evaluate two specific technologies: hydrogen peroxide enhancement of the pine and hardwood extraction stages and the installation of a 2nd second stage oxygen delignification on the pine line. These technologies proved to not be technically, operationally and/or economically feasible for the facility, and involved facility staff as well as staff with other companies. Overall, the facility has not been unable to identify any new feasible technology. While 40 CFR Part 131 requires that "a State may not adopt Water Quality Standard (WQS) variances if the designated use and criterion addressed by the WQS variance can be achieved..." by implementing certain effluent measures, the permit contains technology -based effluent limits that result in achieving the same goal and are in accordance with most recent U.S. EPA TRW recommendations. Since the last complete evaluation of the color -reduction technologies was conducted by the EPA Tech Team, no breakthrough in the color removal technology has been made. In addition, Section A. (8.) of the revised Permit requires specific monitoring, a reopener clause to address any future breakthroughs in color removal technologies, and other efforts to minimize impacts from color during critical conditions. The revised permit also requires the facility to conduct a technical review of color removal technologies once during the permit cycle and provide the report to DEQ-DWR with the renewal application. The revised permit shall be subject to reopening in order to modify the color requirements based upon any breakthrough in color removal technologies. Such breakthroughs shall be brought to the NPDES Committee for consideration, by Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC and the Division of Water ResourcesDWR, as soon as they are discovered. This language was included in the revised Permit to assure the facility's continuous efforts to minimize color impacts on the receiving stream. It is important to understand that the market for a color reducing technology is extremely small. The pulp and paper industry has been downsizing for decades and most facilities do not have color issues because they have a high dilution or discharge to the black water streams. For example, there are six major dischargers in North Carolina that process cellulose and have a colored wastewater, and on y , e f c;iit.. HaG put f rth certea eff rt to reduce color i., t>,eir waste stream., Since a similar situation exists in other states, the manufacturers of wastewater s-17 Commented [KE119]: Why italic? Formatted: Font: Italic (Commented [HAD120]: ? Commented [KE121R120]: What exactly is the nature of the question? y Commented [KE122R120]: Could just leave out "Tech Team" treatment are not interested in development of a treatment technology targeting color in pulp and pape eilities It is also necessary to emphasize that the prediction of the color reductions from technologies can be extremely difficult because color is not a conservative parameter, and the synergetic effect of [the sewer generated [color is strong. This effect occurs when two streams of color combine and the resulting color is much higher than a simple arithmetic addition of color from these streams. Thus, predicted reductions in color from technologies are likely to be unreliable and Overestimatedl. RECOIVIlENDATION It is the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the variance from the narrative provision standard for color at 15A NCAC 02B .0211 (12), historically interpreted as an instream true color value of 50 platinum cobalt units (PCU), is no longer necessary for Blue Ridge Paper Products, LLC (d/b/a Evergreen Packaging), as proposed herein. Significant improvements to the instream concentrations of color in the Pigeon River, combined with specific limits on color and an updated reevaluation regarding the narrative provision and protection of the designated uses, support removal of the color variance. In making this recommendation, the Hearing Officer has considered all comments received regarding the proposed removal of the color variance. In addition, the Hearing Officer has considered the requirements of 15A NCAC 02B .0211, .0206 (a)(5), and .0226; NC General Statutes 143-215.1 and 143-215.3(e); and 40 CFR Part 110.3(a)-(b), 132.5(b)(2), and 131 [including 131.10(g), 131.14 (b)(1)(ii)(A)(3), and 131.14 (b)(1)(v)]; according to the later Part (131) of 40 CFR, the facility does not qualify for a continuance of the variance, as the original variance was written for an expected limited timeframe and purpose, and the state may not adopt a variance if the criterion can be achieved. Commented [KE123]: This is valuable information that I'd Ill rather not lose from the document. r Commented [CS124R123]: I strongly agree with Betsy. We should keep this sentence. Commented [HAD125]: Are we saying that the sewer/piping adds color to the waste stream? Commented [KE126R125]: Need Sergei's assistance with this question Commented [CS127R125]: Yes, we are making this statement. A sewer generated color is a well known phenomenon. When acid and alkaline sewers are mixed in the WWTP, there is a synergism in creating color. The reasons for this synergism is not well understood. Commented [HAD128]: Wouldn't they be underestimated due to the synergetic effect? ',I -Commented [KE129R128]: See remark d ectly above. Commented [CS130R128]: I agree with Betsy, the EPA Tech Teams makes a prediction for reducing color for each process, but in the end each process generates wastewater that mixes together and creates an additional color. The amount of that additional color is ahnost impossible to predict.