NC0002305_Report_20020214

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0002305
Guilford Mills WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
February 14, 2002
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re-srer®►e wide

Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
11}POeS GcAi
C. "-W,.'•'ER:iITY
FUI!�T SOURCE R4+�Ac f
Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Final Report
February 14, 2002
RECEIVED
Ftb 1 5 2O
Enviromental Sciences Bran_-j
Guilford Mills, Inc. — Guilford East Plant
NPDES Permit No. NC0002305
Kenansville, Duplin County

Guilford East TIE Report
�► February 14, 2002
Introduction:
In a letter dated April 2, 2001, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) informed Guilford Mills that in January 2001 the Guilford East Plant was
in violation of the toxicity limitation specified in the NPDES permit for the facility.
The letter further stated that if another failure occurred during that quarter, the
facility would trigger the Division's Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy. The
letter contained a prospective effluent Copper limitation and stated that unless
Guilford Mills took steps to prove why a Copper limitation was not appropriate,
Ant the Copper limitation would be placed in the permit. In a letter dated April 24,
2001, DWQ informed the company that it was in violation of the toxicity limitation
in the permit for the month of February 2001. The letter also stated that the
• facility had now triggered the Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy and that a
written response was required by May 24, 2001, either accepting the Copper
limitation or outlining the company's plans for showing that the limitation was not
appropriate. In a letter dated May 11, 2001, Guilford Mills provided a summary of
Copper and Zinc data from the past several years in an effort to prove that
Copper was not the cause of toxicity and that the Copper limitation was not
pm appropriate. The Copper and Zinc data showed that the effluent levels of these
metals were actually lower during the current period of toxicity violations when
compared to previous periods of compliance.
In a letter dated May 25, 2001, DWQ stated that while it appears that
Copper and Zinc levels were lower during the current toxicity problems, only one
Copper and Zinc analysis was performed on a sample that was also tested for
toxicity. In a subsequent meeting in June 2001, DWQ and the Aquatic
Toxicology Unit (ATU) indicated that they wanted Guilford Mills to perform a
Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) in order to determine whether the Copper
is the cause of the effluent toxicity. Guilford Mills agreed to carry out the TIE,
conducting three separate testing efforts during the 9-month period from April
2001 to January 2002. This comprehensive report presents the results from the
TIE efforts.
Forl

Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
Method and Materials:
The effluent manipulation TIE tests were performed on samples obtained
from three separate testing months during the 9-month period from April 2001 to
January 2002. The composite samples were split from the compliance toxicity
samples that were being submitted for regular testing. The samples were sent to
Tritest, Inc., in Raleigh, NC, where the TIE tests were performed by Tritest.
Tritest followed the procedures and guidance found in the EPA document
entitled: Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization of Chronically Toxic
Effluents, Phase I Duluth MN: Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA/600/6-
91/005. The methods and materials used to perform the effluent manipulation
TIE tests are contained in this document. Specifically, Tritest followed
procedures starting on page 6-4 of this document for the EDTA effluent
manipulation for metals, the procedures starting on page 6-11 for the C-18
column effluent manipulation, and the procedures starting on page 6-15 for the
C-18 column elution procedures. On the advice of our consultant, Guilford Mills
asked Tritest to perform an elution step with Hexane (in addition to the normal
Methanol elution step) in order to obtain additional insight into the nature of the
organic compounds causing the toxicity problems.

Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
11111111
Results and Discussion:
The effluent manipulation TIE tests were performed on samples obtained
during the following weeks: June 11, 2001; October 29, 2001; January 28, 2002.
As with all 7-day chronic toxicity test samples, the first 24-hour composite effluent
sample was collected from Monday to Tuesday morning. This sample was then
submitted to the lab and the test was begun. The facility then collected the
second 24-hour composite sample from Thursday to Friday morning, and this
sample was then sent to the lab.
The results of the three TIE testing efforts are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and
4. Table 1 lists the results of the compliance samples during the three testing
periods. Copper and Zinc testing results are also shown in Table 1. Table 2
shows the results of the EDTA effluent manipulation tests. Table 3 shows the
results of the C-18 column effluent manipulation tests and Table 4 lists the
results of the elution procedures. The reports from Tritest are contained in
Appendix A. Effluent Copper and Zinc data are contained in Appendix B.
It can be seen in Table 1 that the effluent was chronically toxic at 9.55%
"'°' effluent as measured by the test during the weeks of June 11, 2001 and October
29, 2001. The chronic toxicity test performance was much improved for the
samples taken during the week of January 28, 2002.
Pal Table 2 shows a comparison between the results of the EDTA
manipulation toxicity tests and the compliance (unmanipulated) tests from the
same composite sample. It can be seen that for the week of June 11, 2001, farl EDTA manipulation did not reduce the toxicity of the sample at any dilution or at
any concentration of EDTA. For the week of October 29, 2001, the highest
dosage of EDTA reduced the toxicity slightly at all dilutions. Lower
concentrations of EDTA did not reduce the toxicity of the effluent. Finally, it can
be seen that for the week of January 28, 2002, the EDTA manipulation did not
reduce the toxicity of the sample at any dilution or at any concentration of EDTA.
Mel
It should be noted that the Copper concentration in the effluent during the week
of January 28, 2002 was at and above the prospective permit limitation (53 ug/L)
and that the Chronic Value of the compliance sample was 38.2%. During the
previous two TIE test periods, the Copper concentrations in the effluent were
lower (in the 30 — 36 ug/L range), yet the Chronic Values of the complaince
samples were 9.55%.
Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the C-18 column effluent manipulation
toxicity tests as well as those of the elution toxicity tests. It can be seen from
Table 3 that the C-18 column removed the majority of the toxicity from the
effluent sample at all dilutions in all three testing periods.. Table 4 shows that the
Methanol eluate did not contain the toxic species in all three TIE tests, while the

Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
Hexane eluate seems to have contained some of the toxic species in the October
29, 2001 test.
We believe that the results of the TIE tests definitively rule out Copper and
Zinc as the cause of the effluent toxicity problem at this facility. The results of the
January 28, 2002 compliance sample compared to the effluent Copper
concentration and the historical effluent Copper data (Appendix B) further
support this conclusion. It is the position of Guilford Mills that it would be
inappropriate for DWQ to place the prospective Copper limitation in this permit.
We believe that the results of the TIE tests do show that organic species
�*+ are the cause of the effluent toxicity problem at this facility. The organic
compounds were not pulled out of the C-18 column by Methanol and Hexane and
this provides potential clues as to the nature of the compounds. One possibility
is that the toxicity has been caused in part by organic polymers that were
formerly used in the clarifiers to promote good settling and low effluent BOD.
Guilford Mills stopped adding the organic polymers in November 2001. Since
that time, it appears that the chronic toxicity test performance of the facility is
improving. Other contributors to effluent toxicity may be contained in certain
products used in the manufacturing process. The company has continued to
perform Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) work while the TIE efforts were
under way. We believe that these efforts are beginning to show positive results

Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
Tables

Effluent Manipulation Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Table 1: Complaince Sample Results
Guilford Mills, Inc. - Guilford East Plant
NPDES No. NC0002305
February 14, 2002
Week of Effluent
Toxicity Test
Test
LOEC
NOEC
Chronic
Value
Eff. Copper
Conc (ug/L)
Eff. Zinc
Conc (ug/L)
June 11, 2001
13.5
6.75
9.55
June 12, 2001
35
16
June 13, 2001
36
25
June 15, 2001
34
16
October 29, 2001
13.5
6.75
9.55
October 24, 2001
28
11
January 28, 2002
54
27
38,2
January 29, 2002
52
9
January 30, 2002
58

Effluent Manipulation Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Table 2: EDTA Effluent Manipulation Results
Guilford Mills, Inc. - Guilford East Plant
NPDES No. NC0002305
February 14, 2002
Week of Effluent
Toxicity Test
Effluent
Percentage
Control
# Young
Control
Live Adults
8 mg(L EDTA
# Young
8 mglL EDTA
Live Adults
3 mg/L EDTA
# Young
3 mg/L EDTA
Live Adults
0.5 mg/L EDTA
# Young
0.5 mg/L EDTA
Live Adults
Compl. Sample
# Young
Compl. Sample
Live Adults
June 11, 2001
6.25
26.4
5
22.4
5
23
5
4
2
13.5
26.4
5
9
5
9.6
5
12.4
5
27
26.4
5
2.6
5
2.2
4
2.6
4
Compliance Sample
6.25
29.6
10
28.1
10
13.5
29.6
10
22.6
10
27
29.6
10
6.9
10
October 29, 2001
13.5
28.4
5
25.2
5
17.4
5
7.8
5
7.8
5
27
28.4
5
19.4
5
3
5
0.4
5
0.4
5
54
28.4
5
3.4
5
0
5
0
4
0
4
Compliance Sample
13.5
29.7
10
19.5
10
27
29.7
10
6.5
10
54
29.7
10
0
10
January 28, 2002
6.25
29.8
5
0.4
2
30.4
5
29.4
5
29.4
5
13.5
29.8
5
3.6
2
19.8
5
19.8
4
19.8
4
27
29.8
5
1.8
1
15.2
2
26
5
26
5
Compliance Sample
6.25
34.2
10
34.3
10
13.5
34.2
10
31.6
10
27
34.2
10
28.8
9
Notes: The number of young is the mean of the 5 replicates of each of these tests. For comparison purposes, the results of the corresponding effluent dilution runs from
the compliance sample are shown.

Effluent Manipulation Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Table 3: C-18 Column Effluent Manipulation Results
Guilford Mills, Inc. - Guilford East Plant
NPDES No. NC0002305
February 14, 2002
Week of Effluent
Toxicity Test
Effluent
Percentage
Control
# Young
Control
Live Adults
Post Column
# Young
Post Column
Live Adults
Compl. Sample
# Young
Compl. Sample
Live Adults
June 11, 2001
6.75
28.2
5
25.4
5
13.5
28.2
5
26.4
5
27
28.2
5
25
5
54
28.2
5
26.6
5
100
28.2
5
25
5
Compliance Sample
6.25
29.6
10
28.1
10
13.5
29.6
10
22.6
10
27
29.6
10
6.9
10
54
29.6
10
0
0
100
29.6
10
0
0
October 29, 2001
13.5
25.6
5
26.6
5
27
25.6
5
23.2
5
54
25.6
5
21.6
5
Compliance Sample
13.5
29.7
10
19.5
10
27
29.7
10
6.5
10
54
29.7
10
0
10
January 28, 2002
13.5
29.6
5
28.6
5
27
29.6
5
26
5
54
29.6
5
27.4
5
Compliance Sample
13.5
34.2
10
31.6
10
27
34.2
10
28.8
9
54
34.2
10
9.6
7
Notes: The number of young is the mean of the 5 replicates of each of these tests. For comparison purposes, the results of the
corresponding effluent dilution runs from the compliance sample are shown.

Effluent Manipulation Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Table 4: C-18 Column Elution Results
Guilford Mills, Inc. - Guilford East Plant
NPDES No. NC0002305
February 14, 2002
Week of Effluent
Toxicity Test
Effluent
Percentage
Control
# Young
Control
Live Adults
Methanol
# Young
Methanol
Live Adults
Hexane
# Young
Hexane
Live Adults
June 11, 2001
6.75
28
5
28.6
5
13.5
28
5
28.4
5
27
28
5
28.6
5
October 29, 2001
13.5
28.4
5
27.8
5
25.2
5
27
28.4
5
28.2
5
23.4
5
54
28.4
5
28
5
10.4
4
January 28, 2002
13.5
29.6
5
30.6
5
28.8
5
27
29.6
5
29.8
5
29
5
54
29.6
5
26.8
5
32
5
Notes: The number of young is the mean of the 5 replicates of each of these tests.

ti
Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
Appendices

Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
Appendix A

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 6/26/01
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest, Inc.
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#: NC0002305
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec, Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Control
1
Organism #
PipeTh 001
County: Duplin
Comments: Order Number: 0106-00500
Test
Information`
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O, Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
6/13/01
6/20/01
Renew2
17:03
Start
Renews
17:30
Renew2
seirt
100
Renews
27
27
Control
Control
Control
7.8
8.4
7.9
8.3
7.8
8.1
7.8
8.0
7.9
8.1
7.9
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8,1
8.1
25.6
24.5
24.0
25.6
25.5
25.4
24.9
24.5
25.2
24.9
24.5
25.2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M
# Young
26
32
27
33 131
30
30 130
31
26
0
0
29.&
y.'°F'J
4::•t :u>
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
LLLLL
L
L I L
L
L
j
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Effluent %
# Young
28
29 24
28
28
29 1
25
31
28 1 29
I
0 I 0 `28.1 1
6.75
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
LLLLL
5.07
6 7 8 9 10 Mea
Effluent %
# Young
27
26
22
23 1 23
18
20
19
23
25 22.6
13.5`
Adult
L
L
L j
L
L
L
L
L
Li_
23.6
(
(L)-ive (D)ead
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M
Effluent %
I # Young
12
10
3
0
10
0
7 I 7 11
9
6.9
27
Adult
LLLLLLLLILL
76-7
(L)ive (D)ead
4
Effluent %
# Young
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
54
Adult
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
100
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 Mea
Effluent %
# Young
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
Adult
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
100
LLjve (geed
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
0
100
8.31
48 Hour Mortality
Control
oof10
Significant?
IWC
1 l0oflO
Final Mortality Significant @
54 7 or !No Con•
c.
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 13.5
; NOEC-
Method: Dunnett's
Normal Distrlb?: YC5 Method: Sliaprio-Wilk's
Statistic: 0.94619 Critical: 0.9.19
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Ea/lieu's
Statistic: g 2985 Critical: 11.3449
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysi
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC =
13.5 : NOEC = 6.75
Chronic Value = 9.55
MAIL
TO:
AYT: N.C. Dept. of ENR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Services Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration wilt) D.O. >5.0mg/I
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
80/EO'd 092996E0t61 01 L6b9 1728 616
'ONI `1S31I?Jl eld ES:OT T0, 8E NFU

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 6/28/01
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#:
Tritest. Inc.
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness Img/I)
Spec. Cond. (Limbos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Control
Effluent %
I0.02 PPM
0.os
1
# Young
26
26
24
27
Adult
LLLL
(L)ive (D)ead
1
# Young
Adult
(L).ive (D)ead
3
1
3
L
5
3
Pipe#:
County:
Comments: Order Number: 0106-500-5
Chelate 6,75%
Test
Information •
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date End Date
6/13/01 6/20/0 )
sat Rencwl Rcncw2
Start Time
End Time
Start
Renews
Renews
Control Control
Control
Organism #
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
29 0 0 j 0 0 0 0 0 26.4T
L
D
4 5
7 8 9 10 11 12
0! 0 0 0 0 0 4.0
Mean
0
M
Effluent %
# Young
17
22
26
29 21
0
0 i 0
0
0
23,0
0.12 PPM
,j 'Z IL
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
LLL
Effluent %
4 5
# Young
21 24 21 24 22
0,32 PPM
Effluent %
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
# Young
L L
2
0
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
10 Mean
0
22.4
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
8 9 10 Mean
0 0 0 0
0
2 3 4
Effluent %
# Young
0
0
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
of of
Significant?
Final Mortality Significant @
or ;No Conc,l
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 0,02 ; NOEL= 0.12
Method: Dtuuiett's
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.94678 Critical: 0.868
Equal Variances?: yes_ Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 7,73775 Critical: 1.1.3449
Non -Parametric Analysis of applicahl
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL sl
Test LOEC = 0.02 : NOEC =
0.12
Chronic Value 0.1149
MAIL ATT: N.C. Dept. of ENR
Division of Water Quality
TO: Environmental Services Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
• Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with 0,0, >5.0mgll
1% Reduction from Control Reproduclion Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
80/S0'd 092996ZO161 0l L67.9 1728 616
' DN I `±saL i Il ad t7 : 01 TO, 8Z Nflf

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
NMI
MON
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest. Inc.
x
Signature of 0,11,C.
NPDES#:
x
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhoslcm)
Chlorine (mg/11
Sample temp. at receipt
Sample 2 I Control
Control
Adult
1
# Young
3 4
26I26I24
(L)ive (D)ead
1
15I
Effluent % # Young
I0.02 PPM- Adult
L::us y /i (Live (D)ead
Effluent % f # Young
0.12 PPM
Effluent %
0.32 PPM
f3 1 L
Li
27
Organism #
S 6 7 8
29 0 I 0 0
L
Pi.e#: County:
Comments: Order Number: 0106-500-4
Cbelatc 13.5%
6/28/01
Tust
Information'
Treatment
PH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date I End Date
6/13/01 6/20/01
Stan I Renew
Start Time
Renow2
End Time
Star I Renewl
Control Control
Renewl
Control
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 13 11 j 13 j 0 0
L L L
1 2
13 4 18
LIL
4 ' S
12
Adult I L L
(L)ive (D)ead
L
11
L
10 11 12 Mean
I26 4
8 9 10 11 12 Mean
0 I 00 I 0 0 12.4
6 7 8 9
0
0
1 2 3 4
# Young 10 I 4 11 8 12
Adult ILIL L L
L ive Dead
1 2
Effluent % j # Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
0
0
Effluent % # Young
IAdult
(L)ive (D)ead
3
0
0
o I
10 Mean
0
7 8
o I
0 9.-6-1
r0 —7
10 Mean
MAIL
TO:
0 9.0
0
9 10 Mean
0 0
0
0
10 Mean
0
ATT: N.C. Dept. of ENR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Services Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
0
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
of j of
Significant?
Final Mortality Significant @
I or INo Conc.,
Reproduction Analysts
Repro. LOEC= 0.02 NOEL= <0.02
Method: DuIlnCtt'S
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.93577 critical: 0.868
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 2.51165 Critical: 11.3449
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = 0 02 ; NOEC = <0.02
•
Chronic Value = <0.02
' Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/I
tat Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
80ib0'd 092996EDT6T 01 2,6b9 1228 6T6
SN I ' 1SB1 I ell dd bS : 0 T TO. 8i✓ Nflf

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase 1I Chronic Ceriodaphnia 6/28/01
POW
MaiII
MEW
MORI
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest, Inc.
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#:
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Control
# Young
26
3 4
Pipe#:
County:
comments: Order Number: 0106-500-:3
Chclato 27%
Oroanism #
5 6 7 8
Test
Information"
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date End Date Start Time
End Time
6/1 3/01 6/20/0 ]
Start
Renewl Renew2 Start Renewl ReneW2
Control Control Control
26 24 27
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
' ▪ Effluent %
PPM
# Young
Adult
(L}ive (D)ead
7
Effluent
rs,Jy4.12 PPM Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
3 4
0 2
0
29 0 0
5
0
6
7
10 11 12 Mean
0 0 0 26.41
9 10 11 12 Mean
0 0 2.6
# Young
4
0 2 0
10 Mean
L
0
0
0
2.2
Effluent % i # Young
�$ 4 0.32 PPMI Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Effluent %
0
2
2
4
8 9 10 Mean
5
L
L
L
L
0 0 0 2.6
Effluent %
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
5
0
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
5
0
10 Mean
0 0
0
10 Mean
0
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
48 Hour Mortality
Control
of
IWC
of
Significant?
Final Mortality Significant @
or [No Conc.
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 0.02 NOEC= <0.02
Method: Dunnett's
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro_
Statistic: 0.92627 Critical: 0.868
Equal Variances?: Yes Method: Bartlett'S
Statistic: 1.08527 critical: 1 t,;a49
lion -Parametric Anatysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = _0`02 ; NOEC = <0.02
Chronic Value = <0.02
MAIL ATT: N.C. Dept. of ENR
Division of Water Quality
TO: Environmental Services Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
• Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. .5.0mg/I
1 ;o Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
80/20'd
092996E016T 01 2,6b9 1728 6T6
'DN1 `1581IELL lid 2S:0T T0, 82 Nflf

** 80 ' B9tdd Dd101 **
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
6/28/01
rmmer
MEM
WWI
IOW
11,
Facility Guilford East NPDES#:
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest, Inc.
x
Signature of O.R.C.
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Control
Effluent e/,
Young
29
2
29
3 4
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
# Young
6.75
Adult
(1live plead
L
L
25 28
30 i-0 0 0
Pipe#:
County:
Comments: Order Number: 0106-500-8
Post Column
Test
Information•
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
6/13/01 I 6/20/01
Start Rcnewt j Renew2
Start
Control
End Time
Renewt Renew2
Control
Control
Organism #
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
0 0 0 28.2
L L
L
1 2 3 4 5
26 25
20
Effluent %
# Young
13.5
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
1 2
25121
Effluent %
L
1
L
26 30 0
8
9
10
11
0
L L
0
0 0
12 Mean
0 25.4
31 25
26
# Young
27
Effluent %
L
L
L
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
22
28
0
0 r0
L
0
0
26.4
3
5
24
Adult L L
(L)ive (D)ead
1 2
# Young 25 25
28
27
L
5
n/a
9 10 Mean
0
0
0
25.0
n/a
27 29
27
54
Effluent %
Adult
(Clive (D)ead
L /
L.
1
0 Mean
0
2
4
5
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
100
25 i 20
27 25
L L
L
28
26.6
10 Mean
25
0
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
of 71 of
Significant?
Final Mortality Significant
7 or [No Conc.j
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= >100 ; NOEL= 100
Method: Dunnett s
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: $llpiro__.._
Statistic: 0.95607 Critical: 0.9
Equal Variances?: No Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 3,09161 Critical: 15.0863
Non -Parametric Analysis lif applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result a PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = >100 ; NOEC = 100
Chronic Value = >100
MAIL
TO:
ATT: N.C. Dept. of ENR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Services Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
• Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. i5.0mg/I
1% Reduction from Control Rcproduclion Min
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
80/B0 ' d 2192996E0%T Di 2.,6b9 1728 616
DNI '1581Ib1 ad SS:OT TO, BE Nflf

• Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 6/28/01
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest, Inc.
NPDES#:
x x
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Signature of O.R.C.
Pipe#: County:
Comments: Order Number: 0106-500-6
Methanol Elute
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. lumhos/cml
Chlorine (mg/II
Sample temp. at receipt
Control
Effluent
Organism #
3 4
Test
Information`
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp, Final
Start Date End Date rStart Time
6/13/01 I 6/20/01
Sort Renewl Renew2
End Time
Start Ranawl
Rcn w2
Control
Control
# Young
29
27
27 28
29
0
0 J 0
0
0
0
0
28.0
Adult
L
L
L L
L
I
r5
'(L)ive (D)ead
; ;,,..,
3
4
5
6.75
# Young
30
27
31
281271 0
9 10 11 12 Mean
0 0 0 0 28.6
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
1 2
L
L
5 6
n/a
Mean
Effluent %
i # Young
29 1
28
29
27
1 29
0
0
0
0
0
28.4
13.5
Adult
L
L
LLL
rva
(L)ive (D)ead
1
1
2
3 4
Effluent %
# Young
30
L
28
L
28
28
29
0
0
0
0
0
28.6
27
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
L
n/a
Effluent %
# Young
10 Mean
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
1
0
0
0
0
0
Effluent %
# Young
- -
- -
v
0 -
Adult
i
o
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
48 Hour Mortality
Control (WC
I of I of
Significant?
Final Mortality Significant @
or I No Conc.
Reproduction Analysis
Repro.LOEC= 54 ; NOEC= )7
Method: Dunttcit's
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.95587 Critical: 0 488
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 7.61511 Critical: 13.2767
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result - PASS/FAIL
Test LOEC -
or
54 ; NOEC
27
Chronic Value = 38 2
MAIL
TO:
ATT: N.C. Dept. of ENR
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Services Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
• Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/I
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mezn
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
80/90'd 09E996i?0T61 01 L6t'9 U28 6TS
'3N1 `1S81Ii'l1 eld tbS:OT TO, BZ Nflf

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
6/28/01
MIA
PENNI
Facility .Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test
Signature of O.R,C,
Tritest, Inc.
NPDES#:
Pipe#:
County:
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Information Sample 1
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. lumhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Control
Effluent
6.75
J(L)ive (D)ead
1
# Young
1 2
29 27
3
27
4
28
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
Comments: Order Number: 0106-500-7
Methanol Blank
Organism #
5 6 7 8
29 0 0
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date End Date
6/13/01 6/20/01
Start Time End Time
Stan Rcncwt Rencw2
Start Renewl
Renewl
Control
Control
Control
L
10 11 12 Mean
0 0 0
28.0
1 2
28
24
29
2
5
6
8 9 10 11 12 Mean
30 0
Effluent
# Young
Adult
L
L
L
0
0
0
27.4
2 3 4
# Young
29
30 29 27
27
13.5
Effluent
27
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Effluent
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
54
Effluent
L
L
L
L
10 Mean
0
0
0 28.4
1 2 3 4 5 6
nla
10 Mean
26 28 25 30 ! 27 0
L
L
L
L
0
0(0
0
27,2
n/a
1 2 3 4 5
29
0
16
20 28
10 Mean
L
0 18.6
# Young
4 5
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
1
0
Mean
0
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
cio Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
of of
Significant?
Final Mortality Significant @
1 or INoConc.
Reproduction AnafysA
Repro. LOEC= >54 ; NOEC= 54
Method: Steel's
Normal Distrib?: No Method: Shapiro,
Statistic: 0.74531 Critical: U.8S8
Equal Variances?: No Method: Ba tlett's ..
Statistic: 30,6529 Critical: 13.2767
Non -parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method: Steel's
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
6.75 26.5 17.0
13.5 30,0 17.0
27.0 23.5 17.0
54.0 21.5 17.0
Overall Analysis
Result - PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = >54 ; NOEC = 54
Chronic Value = >54
MAIL ATT: N,C. Dept, of ENR
Division of Water Quality
T0: Environmental Services Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
• Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/I
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev, 11/95
80/2,0'd 092996i?0T6T 01 L6b9 P28 6T6
JN I ' 1Shc 12il dd SS : OT TO, 8E N(lf

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 11/15/01
MOW
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#: NC000230 Pipe#: 001 County: DUPLIN
ature of -b Supervisor
Comments: Order Number: 0110-1793
October Test
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Sam .le 1
Sam •le 2
Control
10/29/01
11/1/01
49
197
24hr
551
24 hr
512
<0,1
<0.1
0.6°C
0.8°C
-' Control
Organism #
Test
Information*
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
10/31/01
11/7/01
13:00
12:50
Start
Ranewl
Renew2
Start
Renewl
Renew2
100
27
27
Control
Control
Control
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
25.3
24.1
24.2
24.5
25.0
25.9
25.8
24.7
25.5
25.8
24.7
25.5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young
30
32
31
28
26
29
30
31
31 f 29
0
0 29.7�
Adult
(L)ive Lead
L
L
L
LLLLLLIL
Effluent % # Young
6.75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
26 29 29 28 25 29 22 27 30 26 0 0 27.1
Adult
(L)ive Mead
L
L
L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
# Young 24
17
20 23 18 17 16 20 17 23 19.5
13.5
Adult
LLDLLLL
L
L
L
34.3
LL)ive (D)ead
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
7
6
7
6
11
5
4
6
8
5
6.5
27
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
L
L
LLLLDL
78.1
.., Effluent %
54
l
Effluent %
100
4
6
7 8 9 10 Mean
#Young
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adult •
(L)ive Lead
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
#Young
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adult
DIDDDDDDDDDO
(L)ive (D)ead
8.75
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality
Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
0
100
5.95
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0ofl0- j 0of10
Significant? lye&
Final Mortality Significant @
54
or INo Conc.j
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 13.5 ; NOEC= 6,75
Method: Dunnett's
Normal Distrib?: Yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.98374 Critical: 0.919
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 2.73557 Critical: 11.3449
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL
Test LOEC =
Chronic Value =
Or
13.5 ; NOEC = 6.75
9.55
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/l
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase 11 Chronic Ceriodaphnia 11/15/01
MOM
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#: 000230 Pipe#: 001
Tr. Inc.
nature of -b Supervisor
County: Duplin
Comments: Order Number: 110-1795-1
Chelate 13.5%
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Sample 1
Sample 2
Control
10/29/01
11/7/01
24 hr
24 hr
44
551
512
167
<0.1
<0.1
0.6 °C
0.8 °C
Control
a
2
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. lnitial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
10/31/01
11/7/01
14:26
17:01
Start
Renewt
Renew2
Start
Renewt
Renew2
8.0
8.0
8.0
Control
Control
Control
8.0
7.9
7.8
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.9
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.3
8.1
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.3
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
24.8
25.6
24.4
24.1
24.4
25.2
25.6
25.9
25.8
25.6
25.9
25.8
Organism #
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young
23
30
26
31
32
28.4
Adult
(LLve (D)ead
LLLLL
1 2 3 4 5 6
# Young 26 23 27 26 24
7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
25.2
8.0 mg/I
Adult
L
L
L
L
L
1
11.3
(Live (D)ead
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
18
22
16
15
16
17.4
3.0 mg/I
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
LLLLL
38.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
17
2
10
10
0
7.8
0.5 mg/I
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
LLLL
72.5
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Effluent %
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality % 0
% Control 3rd Brood 100
Control Repro CV 13.3
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0of5 [ 0of5
Significant? I No'.
Final Mortality Significant @
or !No Conc.
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 3.0 mg/1 ; NOEC= 8.0 mg/1
Method: Dunnett's
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.97132 Critical: 0.868
Equal Variances?: Yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 7.24332 Critical: 11.3449
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result= PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = 3.0 me/l ; NOEL = 8,0 mg/1
Chronic Value = 4.89 mg/1
MAIL
TO:
ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
" Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/I
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 11/15/01
NMI
MEIN
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test , st Inc.
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#: 000230 Pipe#: 001
ignature of Lab Supervisor
County: Duplin
Comments: Order Number: 110-1795-2
Chelate 27 %
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Sample 1
Sample 2
Control
10/29/01
11/7/01
24 hr
551
24 hr
512
44
167
<0.1
<0.1
0.6°C
0.8°C
- Control
Organism #
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
10/31/01
11/7/01
14:26
16:54
Start
Renewl
Renew2
Start
Renewl
Renew2
8.0
8.0
8.0
Control
Control
Control
8.1
7.9
7.8
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.9
8.0
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.3
8.1
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.3
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
25.1
25.7
24.1
24.1 24.4
25.2
25.6
25.9
25.8
25.61 25.9 25.8
1
9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young
23
30
26
31
32
28.4
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
L
L
!
L
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young
- Effluent
ANNA
8.0mg/I
19
18
21
18
21
19.4
Adult
LL)ive (D)ead
1
Effluent % # Young 3
L
L
L
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
1 0 0 12 3
3.0 mg/I
Adult
L
L
L
L
L
N/A
LLjive (D)ead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
2
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.5 mg/I
Adult
LL)ive (Plead
LLLLL
N/A
Effluent %
10 Mean
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
1
1
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
31.7
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality % 0
% Control 3rd Brood 100
Control Repro CV 13.3
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0 of
0 of 5
Significant?
No
Final Mortality Significant @
or No Conc.,
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 8,0 mo ; NOEC= >8.0 mg
Method: Dunnett's
Normal Distrib?: Yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 10.8404 Critical: 11.3449
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.9189 Critical: 0.868
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = 8.0 mg ; NOEC = >8.0 mg
Chronic Value = >8.0 mg
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
* Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mgll
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
11/15/01
IMMO
MEW
MMI
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tri t Inc.
Signature of O.R.C.
N P D ES#: 000230 Pipe#: 001
nature of Lab Supervisor
County: Duplin
Comments: Order Number: 110-1795-3
Chelate 54 % There are significant differences between
samples and control.
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Sample 1
Sample 2
Control
10/29/01
11/7/01
24hr
551
24hr
512
44
167
<0.1
<0.1
0.6 °C
0.8 °C
Control
1
Organism #
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date End Date
Start Time
End Time
10/31/01 I 11/7/01
17:17
17:17
Start
Renew'
Renew2
Start
Renew)
Renew2
8.0
8.0
8.0
Control
Control
Control
8.0
7.9
7.7
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
7.9
8.1
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
25.4
26.0
25.2
24.1
24.4
25.2
25.6
25.9
25.8
25.6
25.9
25.8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young
23
30
26
31
32
28.41
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
Effluent % # Young
8.0
1
4
2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7
4
0
12 Mean
3.4
N/A 1
J
Adult
(j )ive Lead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
Adult
LLLLL
N/A
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %[#
Young
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
DLLLL
N/A
- Effluent %
rMINNI
10 Mean
# Young
Effluent %
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
10 Mean
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
100
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0of5
13.3
0of5
Significant? !Noi
Final Mortality Significant @
or [No Conc.�
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 8.0 ; NOEC= >8.0
Method: Homoscedastic t
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.93988 Critical: 0.781
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 2.10294 Critical: 23.1539
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = 8.0 ; NOEC = >8.0
Chronic Value = >8.0
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.omg/I
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
11/15/01
Facility Guilford East
NPDES#: 000230
Pipe#: 001
County: Duplin
PIMNI
Laboratory Performing Test Tr' est, \nc.
x x
Signature of O.R.C.
Si
pervisor
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Sample 1
Sam .le 2
Control
10/29/01
11/7/01
24hr
551
24hr
44
512
167
<0.1
<0.1
0.6 °C
0.8 °C
Control
1
Organism #
Comments: Order Number: 110-1794-1
Post Column
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
10/31/01
11/7/01
17:17
17:11
Start
Renewl
Renew2
Start
Renewl
Renew2
54
54
54
Control
Control
Control
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
25.0
24.4
25.0
24.1
24.4
25.2
25.4
25.6
25.3
25.4
25.6
25.3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young
30
21
28
24
25
125.6
III
Adult
LL)Ive (D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
Effluent %
I # Young
23
25
22
-28
24
24.4
BLANK
Adult
LLLLL
4.69
(
(L)ive (D)ead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
24
27
23
32
27
26.6
13.5
Adult
L
L
L
L
L
N/A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
21
20
23
29
23
23.2
27
Adult
LLLLL
9.38
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
26
25
22
20
15
21.6
54
Adult•L
L
L
L
L
15.6
(L)ive (D)ead
Effluent
# Young
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Test LOEC =
Chronic Value =
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality % 0
% Control 3rd Brood 100
Control Repro CV 13.7
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0of5 I L0of5
Significant? No
Final Mortality Significant @
L. j or No Conc..
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= >54 ; NOEC= 54
Method: Dunnett's
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.9669 Critical: 0.868
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 0.29933 Critical: 2.30601
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
>54 ; NOEC =
>54
54
- MAI L
TO:
ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
* Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/I
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 11/15101
MIER
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#: 000230 Pipe#: 001 County: Duplin
Inc.
ature of Lab Supervisor
Comments: Order Number: 110-1794-3
Methanol Elute
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Sample 1
Sam ele 2 I Control
10/29/01
11/7/01
24 hr
551
24 hr
512
44
167
<0.1
<0.1
0.6 °C
0.8 °C
amo Control
1
Test
Information"
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
10/31/01
11/7/01
17:37
18:39
Start
Renew'
Ronew2
Start
Renewl
Renew2
54
54
54
Control
Control
Control
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.9
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
24.4
25.7
25.3
24.1
24.4
25.2
25.1
25.6
25.3
25.1
25.6
25.3
Organism #
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young
25
31
27
31
28
28.4
Adult
1(L)ive (D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
27
28
29
25
30
27.8
13.5
Adult
L
L
L
L
L
2.11
(
(Jive (D)ead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
27
28
29
25
30
28,2
27
Adult
L
L
L
L
L
0.704
(L ive (D)ead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
I # Young
26
26
27
30
31
28.0
54
Adult
L
L
L
L
L
1.41
(Jive (D)ead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
- Effluent % # Young
FENN
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
1
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
Adult
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
0
100
9.18
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0 of 5 0 of 5
Significant? i no I
Final Mortality Significant @
or No Conc.;
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= >54 ; NOEC= 54
Method: Dunnett's
Normal Distrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.95998 Critical: 0.868
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 1.76948 Critical: 11.3449
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = >54 ; NOEC =
Chronic Value = >54
54
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
" Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/l
1% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 11/15/01
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest Inc.
x
Signature of O.R.C.
x
NPDES#: 000230 Pipe#: 001
ature of Lab Supervisor
County: Duplin
Comments: Order Number: 110-1794-2
Hexane Elute
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/I)
Sample temp. at receipt
Sam a le 1
Sam • le 2 Control
10/29/01
11/7/01
24 hr
551
24 hr
512
44
167
<0.1
<0.1
0.6 °C
0.8 °C
- Control
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Start Date
End Date
Start Time
End Time
10/31/01
11/7/01
17:37
18:38
Start
Renew'
Renew2
Start
Renewt
Renew2
54
54
54
Control
Control
Control
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.8
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.3
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
24.9
25.8
25.2
24.1
24.4
25.2
25.2
25.6
25.7
25.2
25.6
25.7
Organism #
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
#Young
30
21
28
24
25
I
25.6'
Adult
L
L
L
L'
L
(L)ive (D)ead_
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
26
25
22
28
27
25,6
BLANK
Adult
(L)ive ( )ead
L
L
L
L
L
N/A
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
30
23
26
23
24
25.2
13.5
Adult
L
L
L
L
L
1.56
(L)ive (D)ead
1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
21
27
22
23
24
23.4
27
Adult
L
L
L
L L
8.59
(L)ive (D)ead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Effluent %
# Young
13
11
13
12
3
10.4
54
Adult .
L
L
L
L
D
59.4
wive (D)ead
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
i
Effluent % 1 # Young
[Adult
(j__)ive (D)ead
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %
% Control 3rd Brood
Control Repro CV
0
100
13.7
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0of5 I 0of5
Significant? No
Final Mortality Significant @
or INo Conc.
Reproduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= 54
Method: Dunnett's
; NOEC= 27
Normal Distrito?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.97403 Critical: 0,888
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bartlett's
Statistic: 2.05465 Critical: 13.2767
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = 54 ; NOEC =
Chronic Value = 38.2
27
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
* Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mg/I
l% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form ! Phase 11 Chronic Ceriodaphnia
acility Guilford East -- --
Laboratory Performing Test TritestInc.
1/1
2/11102
NPDES#: vC0003 35_ _Pipe#: 001� County: DuEI`tn '
__ _ x
Signature oFO.R.C_- Signature of Lab Supervisor
Comments: Order Numbgr: 0 l 12•987.2
Effluent- 27% dilution a�sed_becaused of 15.3%
red ctiun.��G2� = 3 Ls-t
Sample information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mgfi)
;pec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
Chlorine (mgll)
Sample temp. at receipt
ontrol
L.Sam..Ele 1, I, Sample 2 Control ':
1 /28/02 i 11311/02
561 591
<0.1 1 <0.i_
0.4 `'C 0.9
Test i Start Date ; End Oste_L Start Tone End lima
Information' • J/30r'02 ; 216/02 ' 14:00 _ I1,00 _
StaRTRenaw: ; Renrrlr Start i Ror,e..1 7Rm^'"2
Treatment I i60 100; 100' Control i Control i Control
pH initial . r 7.7 7.27 41 7.3 1 8.1 j- 7,0
1
pH Final i3�l 8.0 8,21` 8.1 1 7.7 7.9 1
y
D,O. Initial 3,4 8,61 7.9; 3.1 ; I 8.0 7.8
D.O. Final 8.2 7.8' 7.51 3.5 ' 3,1 7.9-I
Temp, initial ' 2b,31 25.7`: 25,2, 25.: i 25.9'I �25.5
Temp. Final . 24,7 24,2. 24 7 24.7 : 24.2 i 24.7
_ __ _ - .1_.-- - - .. - 1
Organ�srn #
_ _ _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,-7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
# Young 37 ; 347 54 1 33�35 ! 33 133 ; 34737 , 32 1 0 T 0 -
- Adult 1 L i L 1L , L :L . L; L L i L• L i~
`-{L.)ivelDTeadj _ ' _ ' - ' i 1 - 1 ,
__1 2_3 4 5 6-7 8_9 10 11,_12 Mean
° 1 # Young__129 ° 36 33 i 28 35735 • 36 37 ! 35 , 39 0 i 3 ..3
uent /o I i I -
6.25 'Adult I L �L L I L i L' L I L �, L; L, L! jtilA
(Live (dead i ! _ - _l. ....2 - -
_ 1_ 2 3 4 5 5 7 8_ 9 _0 Mean
Effluent V. E Young_34 ! 32 ! 31 357 34 ; 29 ; 35 ; 31 1 22 ; 35 131.6 .
_ 13.51 Adult LLTL L 1 L 7 L 1 L 1 L! L! L I7,6o
(Live (0ead i i _, i- . -1 ' i -1l
1 2 3~ 4 5 _8 7 F,7.,.- 10 Mear.
F„iiiuent °� # Young 133 35124 ; 29 J I8 1 33 i 29 •• 33 1 25 29 ; 28.8
J -1-
o 1- _
Z7 Adult L. L. I L I -LT D! L i L J L 1 L � L 05,8
L '
Eluent
5i
i
rrfluent %
100
I-
(L)ive (i2).eod- _ !
# Young } 13 1 0 i 12
Adult TL I D Ta ' D
LL]iv_e�Djeadl i� _
____ 1- 2 , 3 4•
-#Young 1 0 0 T01 0
_L-
Adult L I D J D' D
(�ive�D�eadT
-5 _ 6 7~ 8 9 100 Mean
2 18!10!j
11l15; 141 9,6
L�LjLJL7Li1-717
_I 1-6 7 18 1 9 110 Mean
7 p to -To 0 0 i 0 0 4 0
b.�' F., I:L p 1Nia`itTh I ! 1 I
Mf'� A tL ATT: N.C. Dept. of ENR
IVs• Division of Water Quality
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality % 0
% Control 3rd Brood too
Control Repro CV 4.93
48 Hour Mortality
Control 11NC
0of10 i O0C10
Significarrt? :yes'
Final Mortality Significant @
100 or 'NoConc.`
R production Anatvjs
Repro. LOEC= 54 : NOEC= 27 _
Method: Steers
Normal Dlstrib?: N Method: Shapiro _ _
Statistic: 0.92806 Critical: 0.93 __
Equal Variances?: No Method: gan lett's__
statistic: 13,8337 Critical: 13,2767
Non-Parsmtrlc Artal sls_(if a_ppllcabiot
Method: Steel's _ ^ -
Effluent'. Rank Sum
_ 6.25 _ 115
13.55 _ 84.0
54_ _ 55.0
Critical Sum
_,76.0 _
_„ 76.0
_760 _
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Tost LOEC = 54: NOEL = E 27,
Chronic Value =
Should use highr;st test concentration or
hlyhest concentration with D.O. ?5,0mgll
(
4., on.4114w..in1‘ lnnm ^.cntr FteoeXtvel%^ Mgon

' Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form! Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 2112102
MIN
ma*
Pa.
PMPli
MOM
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tritdst,
Signature of O.R.C.
NPDES#: 000230
X
Signature of Lab Supenimor
Pipe*: 00000 County: Duplin
Comments: Ordcr Nurnbec: 201-017.-132
EDTA- 0.5 mg.(1.
,
Sample information I Sample 1 Sample 2
Collection Start Date 1/28/02 i.)31 /02
rab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/I)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/Pm) I
Chlorine (mg/I) <0,1
Sample temp. DE receipt 0.4
591
<0.1
0.9 `C
Control
160
Control
561
I
d I
1 2
Effluent % # Young 29 33
f 6.251 Adult L 1 L
(L)ive (eadl
: Adult iLL
1 2
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pk Finai
D.O. Initial
D.Q. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Flnal
[Start Cate ' End Date 'SttarTime End Time
i 2/8/02 1620 16:00
14717ftiter,o'ReflMmiNA
o.: Rcala,41
54 54! 54 Control Control Control
7,7i 7,2 7.7 7.8 7.8
7.7! 7.87.2
7.9 8.0
8.01 8.11 7.9
7.8! 7.8! 8,0
24.8 26.0,'
14.71 25.3 15,1
8.5 7,3
7.7
7.3
8.0
7.6 J7.3 8.0
24_2 25.3J 25.1
Organism #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 mean
# Young i 31 ; 27 29 33 29
:
1 - •
3 4 5 6 7 5 9 10 11 12 mean
28 31 29
LLjL I
!
L •L L
4
Effluent % Young
135! Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
•
I 29.4
•
: . 34
3 4 5 6 7 8
0 ! 28 21 24 26 1---T
9 10 Mean
D L LIL L
1 2 3 4 5
Effluent Vo #Young 24 . 21 29 32 24
27 Adult L L L
(L)ive (D)ead
5
Effluent % # Young
I Adult
(Lpve (D)ead
# Young 1
Adult
•
Effluent %
{L)lve (D)eacii I ;
3
19.8 ;
. !
33..5
6 7 8 9 10 mean
26.01
1211
7 8
g 10 Mean
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 Mean
MAILATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWOJErivirOnMeatal Sciences
TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. N.C. 27699-1621
ChionlcTest Resul
Final Control Mortality % 0
% Control 3rd 6rood 100
ControlRepro CV 7.652
48 Hour Mortality
Contrd 1WC
0 of 5 ; 0 015
significant?
Final Mortality Significant @
or 'No Conc.
ReprsiducLon Analvsfq
Repro. LOEC0 >27 ; NosC= 27
Method; Steers •,
Normal Dlstrib?: No Method: Shapiro
Statistic; 0,8151 dritical: 0.868
Equal Variances?: No ' Method: Bart lettIS
Statistic: 13.66 l 8. 'Critical: 1 i.S.14,9
Non -Parametric Analysis' fif apolica
Method: Steel's
Efiluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
6.25 ._..:26.0 17.0
13.5
27
21 17,0
avorall Analysis
Result PASS/PAH_ .cr
Test LOEC ••e >271; NOEC 27
......-
Chronic Value >27
- snould use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.Orngit
iYa Rol:4100n from Control Reproduction mean
DEM form AT-F:, (8/91) Rev. 11/95

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase 11 Chronic Ceriodaphnia
2112/02
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest, inc.
Signature of O RC.
NPDES#: ,g00230 Pipe#: 00000 County: Duplin
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Informat!on Sample 1 I Samplo 2
Collection Start Date IL 1/2g/02 1/31/02
Grab !
Composite (Duration) I 2 d j�
Z I 24 hr
Hardness (rng/I)
Spec, Cond. (umhos/cm) ; 561 591
Chlorine (mg/l) <0.1 <0.1
Sample temp, at receipt 0.4 'C ? 0.9 °C
Control
160
Organism #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Control1 # Young 31 1 27 1 29 : 33 , 29 i 1
I Adult Li L L I L L I
CL).ive (13)ead I I I
1 2 3 ..,4 5
Effluent `/, # Young 32 25 34 30 31
6.251 Adult L L i L L
- I I (L)ive (D)ead
1 2 7 4
Effluent % ; # Young 0 ; 32
27 9
13.5J Adult - D L • L L. L
I (.L„iye,.(D)ead i L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Effluent % ! # Young 13 30 26 7 0 I
271 Adult
I 0
DL�LID� � !
(Clive (D.)ead
1 2 3 4
Effluent %
# Young
Adult
(D)ead
Effluent '6 #Young
Adult
(L)ive (Pjead
MAIL
TO:
1 2
31
Comments: Order Number 201.017331
EDTA- 3.0 mziL
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
Start Cate! End Date S;art'rme I •End Time
2/ 1 /02 218/02 1. 16:20 i
Start ; Ranowt ' r'ianewj f surf i Floruwr7
54j 54f 54t Control i Control I Control
7.7 7.2! 7.7i 7.8I 778
7.7 7-8! 7.21 7.9
8,5
7.6
D.O. Initial ! 8.0 8.1 7.9
•
D.Q. Final ' 7.8 7.8' 8.0
Temp. Initial i 24.8 26.0: 24.S! 26.0
Temp. Final 24.2I 25,3 25,1 24 ? ' 25
8.0
7.S 1
7.3
25,1
7.7
7,3 '
-.8 I
8,0
24.8
9 10 11 12 Mean
_i i29,8
10 11 12 Mean
30.4;
'n/a
7 8 9 10 Mean
19.81
33.5
10 Mean
H__v ;102
5 6 7 6 9 10 Mean
I
I
ATi: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.G. 27699-1621
10 Mean
l ±
25.1
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %..
% Control 3rd Brood 10o
Control Repro CV 7.652
0
4a Hour Mortality
Control IWC
O off j 0 of5
Significant? !No:
Final Mortality Significant
•
or No Conc..
Raoroduction Analysis
Repro. L0@C= > 27 ; NOEC- 27
Method; Steel's
Normal Dtstrib?: No Methcw; Shapiro
Statistic: ,Q,8151 Critical:0.868
Equal Variances?: No Method: 13ardetrs
Statistic: 13.6618 Critical; 11.34:9
n-Par matrJt Anal is if a livable :
Method: steel's
Effluent% Rank Sum
6,25 26.0
13.5 16
27 21
Critical Surn
17.0
17.0
17.0
Overall Analysis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC a >27; NOEC 9
Chronic Varue :-27
27
• Shaulo use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. y5.0m9l1
t % Racivction from Control RepeodLecrn Mean
MCA +, , ......_. _

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnra
Facility GuilfordEr
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest, Inc.
x x
Signature of O.R.C.
21T2/02
NPDES#rt: 000230 Pipe#: 00000 County: 'DuDiin
Comments: der Numbe : 201-01D33
LEI) A- 8.0 nze/L-
Signature of Lab SUpen,i$or
Sample Info nation ; Sa;nte 1 i Sample 2 I Control
Collection Start Date ' 1128/02 1/3I 2
i0_
Grab
Composites (Duration)
Hardness (mg/1)
Spec. Cond. (urlhos/cm)
561 591
Chlorine (rng/I) <0,1 ; <0_ 1
Sample temp. at receipt 1 0.4 °C 0.9 °C
Control
Organt�sm
1 2 _3 4__5_ S 7 8
Young I 27 29 ; 33 29 I •
..•._.
Adult L i L I L L; L
.(L)ive (Djead,
1 2 3 4 5
Effluent % !Young Lp p 2 i i 07 0
- 6.25 Adult L D D D' L
Live neadJ
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
- Effluent % # Young 0 i 1 10 7 0
13.5 Adult - D
(L)ive (D)ead D 1' D
1 2 3 .t... 5. 67_.._3 9
Effluent % ' Young
27 Adult
(L)ive iD)ead
Effluent % # Young
- •
Adult
L ive Dead
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
G.O. Initial
D.J. Final
Temp, Inl iat
Temp. Final
info I Start Date i End Date I Start Tao End Time
`1102 .L. 2/8/02 i 16:20 16;00
start .---•.•
Ran°w- ,•t Aona..•ry • • •. £.t, t...r R.now! • AcnOWS
541 541 54 Ccntroi i Control Control
7.71 72! 7.7``7.8 7,S 7.7
I 7,7 7.8' 7 1: 7.4 t 3,0 7.3
8,0
7.8
24.8
24.2
8.1: 7.9; •8.3 78 8.00
7.3; 8.0 ;7.6 7,3 I. ..8.0
).
26.0' 24.8: :26.0 ; 25.1 24.8
25,3:` 25.1' 2 2 25.3 25.1
Chronic Test Results
10 11 12 M9an Final Control Mortality °%
29.8 % Cortrat 3rd Brood
Control Repro C 7.652
48 Hour Mortality
Control' IWC
_ 0 of5 I i.._..O af5
SIgnifleont? s,
Final Mortality Significant @
6.25 or No Conc.:
12 Mean
0.4
10 mean
3.6
4 i 0 0; 0 1 5 : rotezn
L Q
1. I .
1 2 3 a 5 8
.I 1r
1 2 3 4 S
Effluent % Young i r
Adult I
L ive (Mead] i
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
_ TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
I
10
9 10 Mean
S 7 S 9 10
Mean
Reeroduction Analysis
Repro. LOECo •=6,35 NOEL= 6.25
Method; Dunrctt's
Normal Distrib?:110 Method: Si._421.e
Statistic: 0,93732 Critical: (.;68
Equal Variances?; No Method:
8articu's
Statistic: 7.94]67 Critical: 11.3449
0
100
on-Parnmet, final I if a icabla :
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sure
Ov .)r • _I 9
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC; _s; NbEC a 6,25
Chronic Value ■ i <6 Z�
• Should uss highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >9.0rng/1
Vtra

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase 11 Chronic Ceriodaphnia:
2/12/02
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory performing Test
x
Signature of O.R.C.
Tritest Inc.
NPDES#: 000230 Pipe#: 00000 County; Duplin
Signature of Lab Supervisor
Sample Information i Sample 4 I Sample 2
Collection Stan Date i 1/28/02 i 1/ 1/02
Grab I
Composite (Duration) 24 hr 24 hr
Hardness (mg/1)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm)
561
Chlorine (mg/I) ! <0,1 <0.1
Sample temp. at receipt 0.4 °C
' # Youn
Control •• •Adult
l()ive_ (Die
2 3
31
0.9 `'C
Control
0_gr anism_#
4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 Mean
31 27 30 i l29.6
Comments: Order Number: 201.01713A
Post Caltu:Qa
G24-= 71'`(
Test ; Start Date; End Date ! Start Time
Information' I 211/02 I 2/8/02 1 16:20
Renaud : Ran°w2 I Start
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Ternp, Final ,
54
8.1
54i 54 j ! Control
.
7.6' 7,8! 7.8
Ranonl Rener.Q�
Control Control
7.S; 7.7
8.2
8.0
7.3
7.8 7,1 7,9 j 8.0 i 7.3
8.0' 8.1' 8.5 7.8 ; 8.0
•7 6i •
8.1i 7.6 7.3 i 8.0
24.0
24.9! 25.0 26.0 i 25.1 24,8
24 ? 25.3'
25.1! 24.2 25,3 25.1
LILIL
• I
1 2 3 4 5
Effluent % # Young 29 ': 33 1 28 i 31 29
8LANK1 Adult L' L L; L L
)(Wive (Mead
1 2 3 4 5
Effluent % , # Young 32 : 26 r29 1 28 28
13.5 Adult . L; L L! L L
(LLve (D)e
Effluent % • # Young 28 ' 29 • 26 24
27 Adult I L L L L! L
(Wive D ea • !
9 1
10 11 12 Mean
Mean
28.6
9 10 Mean
! 26.0
12.2
Effluent % # Young 1 26 ; 27 !' 28 , 30 ; 26
54 Adult I L I L 1 L L i L
1
Effluent % # Young
�- Adult I L ive (Mead,
2
3 4 5 6
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
8 9 10 Mean
1 27,4
7,43•
8 9 10 Mean
30
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality °4
% Control 3ra Brood 100
Control Repro CV 5.673
48 Hour Mortality
Control (WC
0of5 0of5
Significant? . No
0
Final Mortality Significant
or No Conc.;
Reproduction~ Analysis
Repro. LOEC= >54
Method; Dunnett's
Normal DIstrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
Statistic: 0.9662 Critical: g $63
Equal Variances?: Yes Method: , 1eR's
0579 Statistic: ` "$
Critical: 11_3449
NorLParametric Analysis (if applicable?:
Method:
NOEC= 54
Effluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analvsi$
Ra$ult = PASS/FAIL . RE
Teat LOEC = >54 : NOEC = 54
Chronic Value ■ >5.1
• Should use highest last concentration or
highest concentration with D.U. >5,0m1I1
114 Recutvon rront Ccratol Reproduction Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev, 11/95
r.•

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form / Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia 2/12/02
,•••••••
Wm,
ONO
/1.1111.1
•••••111
Facility Guilford East NPDES#: 000230
Laboratory Performing Test Tritest, Inc.
Signature of O.R.C.
Signature at Lab Supervisor
Sample Information Sample 1 f Sample 21 D-Wt7-31-1
Collection Start Date 1/28/02 1/3 I/02
' Grab
Composite (Duration) 24 hr
Hardness (mg/f)
Spec. Cond. (Umhos/cm) 561
Chlorine (rng/r) <0.1
Sample temp. at receipt 1-0-,4
24 hr
591 160
L.<0.1
Control
Organism #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8
# Young 29 31 i 31 27 30
Adutt LiLiHL!Li
{L)ive (D)ead ! ! I
1 2 3 4 5 7
Effluent % 11 Yaun 1 29 33 28 31 1 29 1
Pipe#: 00000 County: Puplin
comments: Order Number, 201-0173_33
7 171
Test
Information'
Treatment
pH initiai
pH Final
D.0, Initial
D.O. Finai
Temp. Initial
Temp. Firal
Start Date End Date Start Time Enic16;roome
2/1/02 2/8/02 16:20
itart Ravi i isms...v.2 Start 1 'Rener7i
1 54
I 8.0
7.5 7.81 7.41 7.9 8.0 7.3
541 54 Controlj Control Contrd
7.51 7.61 7.8 7.8 7,7
8.3 7,& 3.0
7.2' 7.9
8.5 7.8
7.6 7.3
8.0
24,6
25.0i
14.21
25.3;
25.0 26.0 25.1
25.lj 24.2 25.3 .
8.0
24.8
25.1
BLANK]
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
9 10 11 12 Mean
1 1 129.6i
9 10 11
12 Mean
30
L L:
I
1 _ _2 3 4 5 6 7
32 r 27 32 j 31 31
Effluent % # Young
13.5 Adult LL L L Li
Wive (D)ead' ' L
1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7
27 30 33 30 29
Effluent % Young
27
Effluent %
- Effluent % # Young
1 Adult 1
i(L)ive JP)ead I
Adult L L
(jive(D)ead
8 9 10 Man
8
1 2 3 4 § 6 7
Young 25 30 j 22 29 .281.
54 Adult 1L1L1L1L.LI
LLiive (D)ead
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
8
30.6
f1/2
9 10 Mean
29.8 •
9 10 mean
26.5
9.411;
9 10 mean
1_ i
MAIL ATT: N.C. Department of ENR
DWQ/Environmental Sciences
• TO: Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality %r
% Control 3rd Brood 1 00
Control Repro CV
48 Hour Mortality
Control IWC
0 of 5 1 0 of 5
Significant? !No!
Final Mortality Significant
or 'NoCon.:
0
Reorcduction Analysis
Repro. LOEC= >54 ; NOEc2 54
Methath Dunn ett's
Normal DIstrib?: yes Method: Shapiro
statistic: 0.94092critical; 0.868
Equal Variances?: yes Method: Bertiett's
Statistic: 1.8'7'62 Critical: .1 1.3449
Non-Parameule Analysis (if emoliceble):
Method:
Effluent% Rank Sum Cr1dca1 Sum
Overall Artaiyqis
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC >54 NOEC 54
Chronic Value
• Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with 0,0. ,5.0mg11
1% Reduction from Control Rearoducton Mean
DEM form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/35

+I
L
Effluent %
13.5
Effluent %
Organism #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
# Young 29 31 ; 31 : 27 30
Adult
;•(LJive D dad
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form t PhaSe li Chronic Cerlodaphnia
Facility Guilford East
Laboratory Performing Test Trittst, Inc.
x
Signature cf C.R.C.
NPDES#: 000230 Pipe#: 00000 County: Duplin
Comments: Order Number. 201-0j 73.)4
Signature of Lab Supervisor
am {e L rma ion • S_ ample 1 i Sample 2 ! Control
Collection Start Detn ! 1/18/02 ! 1/31 i02
Grab
Composite (Duration) 34 hr
Hardness (mg/i)
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm) i 56l 591.
160
Chlorine (mg/I) <0. I I
Sample temp, at receipt 0.} aC 0,9'C
Control
L'L: ...,L:L ....
1 2 -3 4 5 6
Effluent % # Youttg-7 29 ; 33 ; 28 31 i 29 i
BLANK Adult L L L
LI
(i, ive Dlead
i_
1 2 3 4 5 6
# Young 1I30 28 26 31 ; 29
Adult L! L i (. i L 1 L
.(Dive D ead I I r i
1 2 3 4 8
*Young 32 24 ' 30 31 1 28 6 7
27 Adult
(t)ive D ead
Effluent % Young
54
L
1 2 3 4 5
30 135 131 32 32
Adult j L L
(L)ive (D)ead I_ ...._�..,._
1 2
Effluent % # Young
- MAIL
TO:
Adult
ead
L LIL
4 5 6 7 8
-� .I . . ,..
Post -it' Fax Note 7671
(t7L i trtdir oeivice t.,.enLer
Raleigh. NI,C. 27699.1621
1•lexane
lest
information -
Treatment
PH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
I
2/12/02
Start Dated End Pate I Start Time End Time
2/1/02 ! 2/8102 ' 16:0 16:20
Stan Renewt Renew2 Start Fie nawt ' inmv2
54( j4 ContrvlTContra) 1 Control
7,t3 7.6i
7.97.1;
54
8,1
8.51 8.0 8.0!
7.4 7,4; 8,5'
�4T 1 "2s.o' 25.0
24,2 25.31 25.1I.
9 10 11 12 Mean
l2
9 10 Meat:
28.8 •
12.70
10 Mean
29.0
(2.03
10 Mean
32
hie
1
Mean
12 Mean
• 0...
7.8 7.8 7.7
7.9 ! - 8.0
3.5 7.8
26.0 I 25,1
. 24,2 1 25.3
7.3
8.0 (
s.0
24,8
75,1
Chronic Test Results
Final Control Mortality % 0
% Control 3rd Brood 100
Control Repro CV 5.35
48 Hour Mortality
Control
0_2t5 0 off
Significant? ; NO.."
Final Mortality Significant @
or 'No Conc.
Reproduction Analysis
ReMethopro. d: LOEC� >c4 , C� NOE34 DUAIJeg.
Normal Distrib?: Yes Method: $Thiap1ro .`
Statistic: 0.96264 Critical; 0.863
Equal Variances?: Yes Method Barrlett's
statistic: 1,97235. Critical: 1,i.3449 _�-
Non-Parametric Ana ars Hz i able
Method:
1;f fluent% Rank Sum Critical Sum
Overall Analysis
Result PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC = >$4 ; NOEL 54
Chronic Value = :.54
Should use highest test conc.Qrttration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0mgf
t 6 Reduction from Contra Reprc4Lctlon Mean

Guilford East TIE Report
February 14, 2002
Appendix B

DATE
WEEK
CHRONIC TOX COP.
ZINC
Effluent
up/L
upl4
May 98
1st
2nd
87
21
05/18/98
3rd
05/19/98
S1
05/20/98
05/21/98
05/22/98
S2 CV 52.54
4th
68
17
Jun-98
1st
2nd
140
21
3rd
06/22/98
4th
06/23/98
S1
06/24/98
99
19
06/25/98
06/26/98
S2 CV 16.26
5th
Jul-98
1st
2nd
84
24
3rd
07/27/98
4th
07/28/98
S1
46
38
07/29/98
07/30/98
07/31/98
S2 CV 32.56
gY\' i
;\: ia«ate
i 2
T
08/10/98
2nd
08/11/98
S1
08/12/98
35
24
08/13/98
08/14/98
S2 CV52.54
3rd
4th
52
25
08/31/98
Sep-01
1st
09/02/98
S1
09/03/98
09/04/98
CV >60
2nd
34
18
09/14/98
3rd
09/15/98
S1
09/16/98
09/17/98
S2 CV 52.53
DATE
WEEK
CHRONIC TOX
COP.
ZINC
09/18/98
4th
39
40
5th
Oct-98
1st
2nd
44
19
10/19/98
3rd
10/20/98
S1
10/21/98
10/22/98
10/23/98
S2 >60
4th
50
19
Nov-98
NO CHRONIC TEST
NEW PERMIT
Dec-98
1st
48
12
12/14/98
2nd
12/15/98
S1
12/16/98
12/17/98
12/18/98
S2 Failed
3rd
59
96
Jan-99
1st
2nd
80
15
01/18/99
3rd
01/19/99
S1
01/20/99
01/21/99
01/22/99
S2 passed
4th
45
14

Feb-99
1st
2nd
51
10
3rd
4th
51
13
Mar-99
1st
2nd
48
12
3rd
4th
48
7
5th
Apr-99
1st
2nd
45
24
04/19/99
3rd
04/20/99
S1
04/21/99
DATE
WEEK
CHRONIC TOX
COP.
ZINC
04/22/99
04/23/99
S2 passed
4th
40
25
May-99
1st
2nd
34
33
3rd
4th
24
11
Jun-99
1st
2nd
25
15
3rd
4th
13
11
5th
Jul-99
1st
2nd
3rd
26
10
07/26/99
4th
07/27/99
S1
07/28/99
30
27
07/29/99
S2 passed
Aug-99
1st
2nd
15
16
3rd
4rd
31
83
Sep-99
1st
2nd
Humcan Floyd
September 16, 1999
3
18
3rd
4th
21
60
5th
Oct-99
1st
2nd
29
13
3rd
10/25/99
4th
10/26/99
S1
10/27/99
30
19
10/28/99
10/29/99
S2 passed
Nov-99
1st
2nd
23
13
3rd
4rd
20
17
DATE
WEEK
CHRONIC TOX
COP.
ZINC
Dec-99
1st
2nd
23
14
3rd
4th
23
12
Jan-00
1st
2nd
29
20
3rd
35
17
E.= fir. :<.02%01/0. ?:..z•z
4th
...
Big Snow
i ;t t � ,� r
42
,.:
19
02/02/00
02/03/00
02/04/00
S2 Failed

Feb 00
1st
41
13
2nd
3rd
33
5
02/28/00
4th
02/29/00
Si
03/01/00
03/02/00
03/03/00
S2 CV 32.86
Mar-00
1st
32
12
2nd
17
03/20/00
3rd
03/21/00
Si
03/22/00
14
8
03/24/00
03/25/00
S2 CV 48.9
4th
Apr-00
1st
29
2nd
27
14
04/17/00
3rd
04/18/00
Si
04/19/00
04/20/00
04/21/00
S2 passed
4th
28
9
May-00
1st
2nd
20
30
3rd
4th
22
11
5th
25
DATE
WEEK
CHRONIC TOX
COP.
ZINC
Jun-00
1st
25
2nd
38
12
3rd
4th
28
15
Jul-00
1st
Vacation
2nd
22
20
3rd
07/24/00
4th
07/25/00
S1
07/26/00
P/F
24
20
07/27/00
07/28/00
S2 Failed
Aug-00
1st
2nd
19
13
3rd
08/21/00
4th
08/22/00
Si
08/23/00
23
16
08/24/00
08/25/00
S2 CV > 13.5
5th
Sep-00
1st
2nd
22
16
3rd
16
09/23/00
4th
09/26/00
S1
09/27/00
12
11
0928/00
09/29/00
S2 CV 13.5
Oct-00
1st
2nd
13
7
3rd
14
1023/00
4th
10/24/00
S1
1025/00
28
19
1026/00
10/27/00
S2 CV 32.9
5th
Nov-00
:.,
1st
3rd
f, f i tag ;�
,,, .,....i.,i?s; 's x.,t=..t ,,;
16
...?e2:
35
22
x
6

4th
DATE
WEEK
CHRONIC TOX
COP.
ZINC
Dec-00
1st
2nd
25
7
3rd
4th
10
13
3rd
g° o-
01/22/01
4th
01/23/01
S1
01/24/01
8
8
01/25/01
01/26/01
S2 Failed
5th
Feb-01
1st
02/12/01
2nd
Si
02/13/01
02/14/01
8
7
02/15/01
02/16/01
S2 CV >13.5
3rd
02/19/01
Si
02/20/01
02/21/01
02/22/01
02/23/01
S2 CV>13.5
02/26/01
4th
02/27/01
S1
02/28/01
26
5
03/01/01
03/02/01
S2 CV >13.5
Mar-01
03/12/01
03/13/01
1st
2nd
Upset in bioactivdy in plant
S1
03/14/01
5
10
03/15/01
03/16/01
03/20/01
S2 CV 16.4
S1
03/21/01
03/22/01
03/23/01
S2 CV 16.4
03/26/01
4th
03/27/01
S1
03/28/01
6
10
03/29/01
DATE
CHRONIC TOX
COP.
ZINC
rEEK
03/30/01
S2 CV 13.5
03/31/01
04/01/01
04/02/01
04/03/01
04/04/01
04/05/01
04/06/01
04/07/01
04/09/01
04/10/01
04/11/01
7
7
04/12/01
04/13/01
04/14/01
04/15/01
04/16/01
04/17/01
04/18/01
04/19/01
04/20/01
04/21/01

04/22/01
,
04/23/01
04/24/01
S1
04/25/01
7
10
04/26/01
04/27/01
S2 CV13.5
04/28/01
04/29/01
04/30/01
05/01/01
05/02/01
05/03/01
05/04/01
05/05/01
05/06/01
05/07/01
05/08/01
S1
05/09/01
7
10
05/10/01
05/11/01
S2 CV13.5
05/12/01
05/13/01
05/14/01
05/15/01
05/16/01
05/17/01
05/18/01
05/19/01
05/20/01
05/21/01
05/22/01
05/23/01
7
19
05/24/01
05/25/01
05/26/01
05/27/01
05/28/01
05/29/01
05/30/01
05/31/01
06/01/01
06/02J01
06/03/01
06/04/01
06/05/01
06/06/01
32
06/07/01`
06/08/01
06/09/01
06/10/01
06/11/01
06/12/01
S1
35
16
06/13/01
36
25
06/14/01
06/15/01
S2 CV 9.55
34
16
06/16/01
06/17/01
06/18/01
06/19/01
06/20/01
06/21/01
06/22/01
06/23/01
06/24/01
06/25/01
06/26/01
06/27/01
40
29
06/28/01
06/29/01
06/30/01
07/01/01
07/02/01
36
07/03/01
07/04/01
07/05/01
07/06/01
07/07/01
07/08/01
07/09/01
07/10/01
07/11/01
36
19

07/12/01
07/13/01
07/14/01
07/15/01
07/16/01
07/17/01
07/18/01
07/19/01
0720/01
07/21/01
07/22/01
07/23/01
07/24/01
S1
28
14
07/25/01
29
14
07/26/01
07/27/01
S2 CV 9.55
30
30
07/28/01
07/29/01
07/30/01
07/31/01
08/01/01
08/02/01
08/03/01
08/04/01
08/05/01
08/06/01
08/07/01
08/08/01
35
10
08/09/01
08/10/01
08/11/01
08/12/01
08/13/01
08/14/01
08/15/01
08/16/01
08/17/01
08/18/01
08/19/01
08/20/01
08/21/01
0822/01
35
14
08/23/01
08/24/01
08/25/01
08/26/01
08/27/01
08/28/01
S1
08/29/01
08/30/01
08/31/01
S2 CV 9.55
09/01/01
09/02/01
09/03/01
09/04/01
09/05/01
09/06/01
09/07/01
09/08/01
09/09/01
09/10/01
09/11/01
09/12/01
39
18
09/13/01
09/14/01
09/15/01
09/16/01
09/17/01
09/18/01
S1
09/19/01
09/20/01
0921/01
S2 CV 9.55
09/22/01
09/23/01
09/24/01
09/25/01
09/26/01
09/27/01
09/28/01
09/29/01 _
09/30/01

•
FBI
10/01/01
10/02/01
10/03/01
10/04/01
10/05/01
10/06/01
10/07/01
10/08/01
10/09/01
10/10/01
45
15
10/11101.
10/12/01
10/13/01
10/14/01
10/15/01
10/16/01
10/17/01
10/18/01
10/19/01
10/20/01
1021/01
10/22/01
10/23/01
10/24/01
28
11
10/25/01
1026/01
10/27/01
10/28/01
10/29/01
S1
10/30/01
10/31/01
11/01/01
S2 CV 9.55
11/02/01
11/03/01
11/04/01
11/05/01
11/06/01
11/07/01:
11/08/01
11/09/01
11/10/01
11/11/01
11/12/01
11/13/01
11/14/01
71
16
11/15/01
11/16/01
11/17/01
11/18/01
11/19/01
11/20/01
11/21/01
11/22/01
11/23/01
11/24/01
1125/01
11/26/01
11/27/01
S1
11/28/01
73
37
1129/01
11/30/01
S2• CV 6.75
80
35
12/01101
12/02/01
12/03/01
12/04/01-
12/05/01
61
30
12/06/01
12/07/01
12/08/01
12/09/01
12/10/01
12/11/01
S1
12/12/01
49
12
12/13/01
12/14/01
S2 CV 9.55
12/15/01
12/16/01
12/17/01
12/18/01
12/19/01
12/20/01

12/21/01
12/22J01
12/23/01
1224/01
12/25/01
12/26/01
44
15
12/27/01
12/28/01
12/29/01
12/30/01
12/31/01
01/01/02
01/02/02
01/03/02
01/04/02
01/05/02
•
01/06/02
01/07/02
01/08/02
01/09/02-
01/10/02
01/11/02
01/12/02
01/13/02
01/14/02
01/15/02
01/16/02
01/17/02
01/18/02
.
01/19/02
0120/02
01/21/02
01/22/02:
01/23/02
0124/02
01/25/02
01/26/02
0127/02
01/28/02
0129/02
S1
52
9
01/30/02
01/31/02
02/01/02
S2 CV 38.2
58
02/02/02
02/03/02
02/04/02
02/05/02
02/06 02
02/07/02
02/08/02
02/09/02
02/10/02
02/11/02
02/1 2/02
02/13/02
02/14/02
FoR

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 15, 1997
Jimmy Summers
Guilford Mills, Inc.
P.O. Box 26969
Greensboro, NC 27419-6969
Altr;liriroA
FDBi-1NJl
Subject: Toxicity Study - Guilford East Division
NPDES No. NC0002305
SOC EMC WQ No. 94-16
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Summers:
Reference is made to the report, entitled Guilford Mills Kenansville Toxicity Study,
submitted June 30, 1997 by John Grey, Jr, P.E. of Grey Engineering, Inc. and to your subsequent
July 28, 1997 meeting with Jason Doll of my staff. The information in the report was found to
be clear, pertinent and very useful, and after thorough review of the evidence presented, Division
staff concur with the recommended alternative of relocating the outfall to the main channel of the
Northeast Cape Fear River.
The Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) chief concern for the potential water quality
impacts of the relocated discharge is in regard to the quality and quantity of fine particulate
solids contained in the discharge. Site visits by our regional office and permitting staff members
over the last several years have revealed that a considerable area of the Goshen Swamp at the
existing discharge site has been adversely impacted by the accumulation of these solids. In
addition, the toxicity study indicates that the whole effluent toxicity problems experienced at the
facility may be related to the solids. The study report states that Guilford Mills has done tests to
evaluate the performance of polymer addition for the reduction of effluent solids and toxicity.
DWQ requests that results of any polymer testing conducted since the study report was produced
and/or any results not enumerated in the report are submitted with the forthcoming NPDES
application. The Division also requests that the application package contain detailed plans of
how and when the facility plans to use polymer addition (or any other methods of solids
removal) to mitigate the adverse impacts of the effluent on the receiving stream.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Jimmy Summers
Toxicity Study — Guilford East Division
August 15, 1997
Page 2
DWQ supports the concept of enlisting Cogentrix's cooperation in the outfall relocation
project and staff are of the opinion that compliance issues for the combined outfall can be
effectively addressed in the NPDES permitting process. NPDES permit compliance will be
judged at a point prior to mixing of the two effluents, but the Division may require periodic
effluent toxicity monitoring on the combined outfall in order to monitor for possibile synergistic
toxicity. As soon as possible, DWQ plans to collect the necessary samples to conduct a full
range chronic test on the combined effluents, mixed in the proportions projected for the final
outfall, in order to evaluate the potential for additive toxicity interaction. Division staff will be in
contact to make the arrangements for collecting the needed effluent samples and to inform you of
the results of the test.
Please be aware that the permitting strategies outlined here to address the combined outfall
project are preliminary and are not binding unless they are part of a formal NPDES permit, and
that permitting requirements may change upon review of the preliminary WET test outlined
above. My staff and I look forward to working with Guilford Mills through the subsequent
permitting and design process. Be assured that the Division fully understands and appreciates
the difficulty that storms and stream flow changes may pose in the construction of an extended
outfall across the flood plain of a large swamp. Please notify us as soon as possible at any time
that it is felt that inclement conditions may impede your ability to meet the milestone dates for
design and construction stipulated in the current SOC.
Please contact Jason Doll of my staff at [phone], extension 507 if you have any
questions.
rely
6t
onald L. t,
Assistant Chief fo
Water Quality Section
cc: John Grey, Jr. — Grey Engineering, Inc.
Mike Williams - Wilmington Regional Office
Matt Mathews — Aquatic Toxicology
Dave Goodrich — Permits & Engineering
Bob Sledge — Facilities Assessment
Central Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: �o�► �l'e �`���17
Fax: _�70-yL_3y _ 3(
From: all
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
pages, including this cover sheet.
Comme ts: o�1r1, �er �� t5/ack
le)) con t./ 4'l4�fb-Y ' /r�t� Isct.,ssJ 3-.
C.ct �� have Goy re.,5*,O-71 5 .
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston --Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] Fax: [phone]
V An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
To:
Fax:
Facsimile Cover. Sheet
/14 A J
From: �aso7't a%/
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Comments: /Y14/
'Se4d Ar
3 pages, including this cover sheet.
tyky rr : 40 -r c�m,�trtrd
otei4 em
R`i" hue. `Pr ar if 0 oei g.. k;6 ry .7'- re s a /,-;„ `ti �
R,1 r cd.a. ( WCi pia �I� c _IU .0"�1 €,.c " \ v,f Y,
--re /►ek 4g. Aa (%-I&S dig a n dr i'i (r Aci4. - . . 2
60 0e- retU u N.- E ! n Oe.,s4:QA ?Z•1 om o 7/iL Ciiri vt 6 04 a
S f -ca, rv,. ? 4.)&1A 61 , pro re L r'ac- - c /1 y S't t e.$)t io-Yt S-
I
or caJry may tiA, u.e, cA(( 1,/kke, i yam.
tuers4i)-YtS . 0°17k41
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayettcville Mooresville Raleigh Washington
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481
Wilmington Winston-Salem
919/395 3900 919/S96-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535. R:.:cin. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
July 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Rick Shiver
Thru: Larry Ausle
Matt Matthews i"
From: Kevin Bowden 1,
arterl Pro ess Report -June 1997 &Toxicity Study 1"
Qu Y THE l�' Po i" � -,,�•
SUBJECT:
flit4
Guilford Mills, Inc. Guilford East Division
SOC EMC WQ No. 94-16
NPDES Permit No. NC0002305
Duplin County
� 7
tj 11'\ 06/°-
� I
0.1
i<7( t fe
•
This office has reviewed the facility's subject quarterly TRE Progress Report dated June 30, 1997. The
report was submitted to fulfill item 2 (b) (1) of the facility's SOC which requires quarterly TRE progress reports
to be submitted in triplicate to the Wilmington Regional Office no later than the 30th day of each March, June,
September and December. Thisoffice has also reviewed the facility's June 23,"1997, study :of proposed
alternatives to'meet final"NPDES Permit limitations. This' Toxicity Study" -was required, byitem-2(b) (2) of the
' :SOC. The facility's .1WC prior to issuance of the September 16, 1996, permit (effective November 1, 1996)
was 19% @ 0.965 MGD and 23% @ 1.25 MGD. The IWC contained in the September 16 permit was
increased to 90% due to the discharge entering a side stream at the edge of a swampy area of the river.
The progress report cites several activities undertaken during the current quarter (March - May) and include:
• Began use of a cleaning compound (March 1997) which does not contain nonyl phenol
ethoxylates (NPEs) or alkyl phenol ethoxylates. (APEs). The facility continues to
investigate other surfactant replacement chemicals:
• Obtained a chronic value of 49% during April 1997.
• Conducted additional studies to evaluate toxicity which may be caused by "sub -micron
particulate matter in the effluent." •
• Submitted a sample to a lab for copper analysis.
The following activities are planned for the upcoming quarter:
• Update inventory of compounds used in the manufacturing process which contain
NPEs and APEs.
• Meet with DWQ representatives in July 1997 to discuss the Toxicity Study.
• Continue to identify chemicals for reformulation or replacement based on inventory
data.
• Will conduct a full range toxicity test during July 1997.
• Will investigate copper toxicity in the effluent.
As previously mentioned, the "Toxicity Study" report was required by the SOC and addresses the issues
of discharge alternatives to meet permit limitations and toxicity reduction. The report concluded that Guilford
Mills should:
• Relocate the effluent outfall to the main channel of the Northeast Cape Fear River at a
cost of $541,000.00.
• Offer Cogentrix the option to share use of the outfall and project expense.
• Petition the State to have: the IWC set at 27%, a Flow limit of 1.5 MGD, and mass
effluent limitations be applied.
• Continue to "test a relationship between coagulation and toxicity reduction."
• Avoid the use of NPE surfactants.
• Comply in a timely manner with other elements of the SOC.
Other discharge altematives addressed by the "Toxicity Study" which were not mentioned above include
pumping the discharge to other locations within the drainage system and continued discharge at the current
location. Neither of these options appear feasible since pumping the discharge to another location within the

Page 2
Guilford Mills Quarterly TRE Progress Report & Toxicity Study
July 10, 1997
drainage basin would reportedly have a "negative environmental impact" and since the current effluent discharge
enters a swampy area of the river with a 0 7Q10 stream flow. The report mentions that previous TREs
conducted in February and May 1994 suggested that surfactants, cationic metals, and ammonia were potential
toxicants. Reductions in effluent toxicity were noted in early1995 after Guilford Mills curtailed use of NPEs.
Unfortunately, the product which was substituted was not as effective as the original product and the facility
resumed use of the original product containing NPEs in August 1995. Beginning in March 1997, Guilford
Mills began using a new machine cleaning chemical and effluent toxicity reportedly decreased. The facility
conducted several tests on filtered and unfiltered clarifier samples (Gelman 1 micron A/E glass fiber filter) and
the results indicated only a "slight difference in toxicity." The facility believes that toxicity may be mediated via
"sub -micron particles" which may be removed through chemical coagulation. The report notes a "strong
correlation" between TSS and toxicity and recommends that additional studies be conducted to support this
correlation. The Company states, "Reliable communication between wastewater treatment and production
insures that the State or Federal government will remain outside the communication loop:" We are unsure what
this statement means.
In summary, we agree with the facility that effluent toxicants are most effectively reduced at their source.
Therefore, this office continues to support all efforts by the facility to reduce toxicity via this approach. We
consider the facility's TRE efforts to date to have a narrow focus. Results of toxicity characterization
procedures conducted during 1994 were "not totally conclusive" but suggested that surfactants may be a primary
toxicant:' We would recommend the Company consider whether effluent toxicity h hanged_over time since
characterization of 'the effluent in 1994. Toxicity 'test results submitted for NP S complian urposes for
January and April 1997 suggest that pass through toxicity is occurrin (ChVs of 16.26 o d 49%,
respectively).
The TRE activities proposed for the upcoming quarter appear reasonable.
Item 2 (bX3) of the SOC requires the facility to meet with DWQ and select an alternative for meeting new
permit limits on or before July 31, 1997. As indicated, the "Toxicity Study" recommends that Guilford Mills
relocate its outfall to the main body of the Northeast Cape Fear River. If the facility chooses to relocate its
outfall to the Northeast Cape Fear River (IWC of 27% at 1.5 MGD) the facility will have to be assured that it can
consistently meet final permit limits for chronic toxicity.
If you should you have any questions, please contact me at 733-2136.
cc: Dennis Ramsey
Mike Williams -Wilmington Regional Office
Jason Doll- Rapid Assessment Group
Aquatic Survey and Toxicology Unit Files
Central Files