NC0034754_Permit (Issuance)_19971008

NPDES DOCUMENT !;CANNING COVER SHEET
NC0034754
CommScope WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Yp?
Permit Issuance'
i
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:
October 8, 1997
Thies document its printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reirerse aside

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 8, 1997
Mr. David A. Gillespie, Manager
CommScope - Environment, Health and Safety
P.O. Box 199
Catawba, North Carolina 28609-0199
Subject: NPDES Permit Transmittal
Permit No. NC0034754
CommScope
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
The Division is forwarding NPDES Permit No. NC0034754 as a result of the final ruling
from the Contested Case Hearing on this matter. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6,
1983.
I apologize for the lapse of time between the ruling and the transmittal of one final
permit document. In summary, the flow limit at the domestic plant outfall was kept at 0.02
MGD. Since it was determined that all three of the remaining permitted outfalls contained
similar sources of wastewater, one page of effluent limitations and monitoring requirements
was developed for pipes 002, 003, and 004. The whole -effluent toxicity test was also changed to
an episodic test to account for the sporadic nature of the pit dump water.
If you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact Mr. David Goodrich at
(919)-733-5083, extension 517.
Sincerely,
74. ,
Preston Howard, Jr.,:P.E.
cc: Central Files
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Mooresville Regional Office/Water Quality Section
Permits &- Engineering Unit
Point Source Compliance and Enforcement Unit
Aquatic Toxicoiogy Unit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephor.e 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recyc- d/ 10% post -consumer paper

Permit No. NC0034754
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission,
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
CommScope, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
CommScope, Inc.
NCSR 1931
northwest of Sherrills Ford
Catawba County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Terrapin Creek in the Catawba River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I,
II, III, and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective October 8, 1997.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on June 30, 2000.
Signed this day October 8, 1997.
4ZPreston Howard, Jr., P. :, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0034754
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
CommScope, Inc.
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.020 MGD wastewater treatment facility with discharge of
wastewater to outfall 001 and continue to discharge contact cooling water (pit dump
water), condensate from air compressors, and stormwater to outfalls 002, 003, and 004 from
a facility located on NC State Road 1931, northwest of Sherrills Ford, Catawba County (see
Part III of this ,permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into an
unnamed tributary to Terrapin Creek which is classified WS-IV waters in the Catawba
River Basin.

ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
LIGHT -DUTY ROAD, HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE =IMMO UNIMPROVED ROAD
Latitude 35°38'57" Longitude 81°01'52"
Map # E14NE Sub -basin 30832
Stream Class WS-IV
Discharge Class 02 15
Receiving Stream UT to Terrapin Creek
Design Q 0.02 MGD Permit expires 6/30/00
3946
002
39.5 003
on]
0 04-
3943DOOm.p
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1973-516-060/6
4 9000m.E.
SCALE 1:24 000
0 1 MILE
0 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
CommScope, Inc.
NC0034754
Cabarrus County

A.(1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS {SUMMER (4pril 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Locations
Flow
0.020 MGD
( Weekly ,,
( Instantaneous])
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20'C
16.0 mg/I
24.0 mg/I
(2/MonfF'''�
E
Grab.—
Total Suspended Residue
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
E
NH3 as N
2.0 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen2
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 /100 ml
400 /100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Chronic Toxicity3
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1 Sample locations: E - Effluent;
I - Influent;
U - Upstream at least 50 feet above ALL outfalls;
D - Downstream at least 100 feet below ALL outfalls.
2 The daily dissolved oxygen efflue rcentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
3 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphni P/"it 34%; February, May, August & November (see Part III, Condition F.).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the
effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A.(2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average :'
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location1
Flow
0.020 MGD
Weekly
Instantaneous
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
2/Month
Grab
E
Total Suspended Residue
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
E
NH3 as N
4.3 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen2
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 /100 ml
400 /100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine
" 2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E .
Temperature
•
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Chronic Toxicity3
•
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1
Sample locations: E - Effluent;
I - Influent;
U - Upstream at least 50 feet above ALL outfalls;
D - Downstream at least 100 feet below ALL outfalls.
2 The daily dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
3 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 34%; February, May, August & November (see Part III, Condition F.).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the
effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (3) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall number
002, 003, and 004 consisting of contact cooling water (pit dump water), condensate from air compressors, and stormwater. Such discharges shall be limited
and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location1
Flow
Monthly
Instantaneous
E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
5.0 mg/I
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Suspended Residue
19.0 mg/I
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine2
Monthly
Grab
E
Temperature3
Monthly
Grab
E
Oil and Grease
29.0 mg/1
Monthly
Grab
E
Acute Toxicity4
4
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1
2
3
Sample locations: E - Effluent.
Monitoring requirements only apply if chlorine is added to the cooling water.
The temperature of the effluent shall not increase the temperature of the receiving stream more than 2.8°C and in no case cause the ambient water
temperature to exceed 32°C. •
4 Acute Toxicity (Fathead Minnow, 24-hour) Monitoring, Episodic (see Part III, Condition G.).
There shall be no chromium, zinc or copper added to the treatment system except as pre -approved additives to biocidal
compounds. The permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division prior to use of any biocidal additive in the cooling
water (see Part III, Condition E.).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored monthly at the
effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Part III
E. Biocide Conditions
Permit NC0034754
1. The permittee shall obtain authorizab.. from the Division prior to use of any biocidal additive
in the discharge.
2. The Permittee shall notify the Di • ctor in writing at least 90 days prior to the use of any
additonal biocidal additive ' 4 e discharge which may be toxic to aquatic life. Notification
shall include completion o :iocide Worksheet Form 101 for each additive to be used, copies of
MSDS sheet(s) for the . • ditive(s) and a map indicating the discharge point(s) and receiving
stream(s).
3. Concentrations o •+ romium, copper or zinc added to biocides shall not exceed applicable water
quality standa • s or action levels in the receiving stream, as determined by calculations from
Biocide Wo sheet Form 101 with the Supplementals Analysis Worksheet.
F. Chronic Toxicit
Permit Limit (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall . - : 'me exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or subsequent
versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality is 34.0% (defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit holder shall
perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The
tests will lze performed during the months of February, May, August, and November. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all
treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine
of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of
the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form
indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with
the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring
will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test
requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly
test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.

Part III Permit NC0034754
F. Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail Permit Limit (Quarterly) Continued
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall
constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last
day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
pta k't
G. Acute Toxicity Monitoring (Quarterly, Episodic)
lit arty
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using protocols defined as definitive in
E.P.A. Document EPA/600/4-90/027 entitled "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms." The monitoring shall be performed as a Fathead Minnow (Pimephales
promelas) 24 hour static test. Effluent samples for self -monitoring purposes must be obtained below all waste
treatment. The testing will be performed upon the first discharge from the facility during each quarter, the
quarters defined as the months of January -March, April -June, July -September, and October -December.
The parameter code for this test is TAE6C. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition
will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the
appropriate parameter code. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the address in Condition
F. above.
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of
the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste
stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during any quarter, the permittee will complete the
information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit
number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment
area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited
above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened
and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require that a test be
performed upon the next discharge event.

--1-u'K
ef
6A-c)AL-4-e_eL ca . 214-T-- 7
0-“.A- ----1--- eig--).--v-tryvt_ ....0
-6v4/‘
c9-Vt /n// 71Y6 .
07----e---c-A-2-i- ,A.fz-tA-t:pAA/--- A. -kJ_ 64-3,-,..„,„..../-
/tA,(___e__, q74 _.42--0-gt___, a(,- 7E‘__-- g,
a-- GA -a-, Cco /1-v-v-h a -a-__,
3 - g9.5-7

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CATAWBA
COMMSCOPE. INC.
Petitioner,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
96 EHR 0078
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE
TO PETITIONER'S CLOSING
ARGUMENT
Now Comes Respondent and files this Response to Petitioner's Closing Argument, as
permitted by Administrative Law Judge Beecher Gray on October 2, 1996.
I. THE CONTESTED PERMIT CONDITION IS BOTH A
MONITORING REQUIREMENT AND AN EFFLUENT
LIMITATION FOR CHRONIC TOXICITY.
The challenged permit condition is set forth in Part I. Section A. (Effluent Limitations
and Monitoring Requirements) and in greater detail in Part III. Section F. of Petitioner's NPDES
Permit No. NC0034754 (Exhibit R1). This permit condition requires not only that Petitioner
conduct monitoring for chronic toxicity of its effluent from outfall 001 but also that a solution
comprised of 34% effluent pass, the Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure. The
requirement that the solution comprised of 34% effluent pass the Ceriodaphnia test is a permit
effluent limitation for chronic toxicity. Should Petitioner's effluent fail this test, Petitioner is
subject to civil penalties for failure to meet permit effluent limits. Petitioner's Closing Argument

2
focuses solely on Respondent's authority to require monitoring for chronic toxicity and fails to
address Respondent's authority to impose permit effluent limitations. Respondent has briefed
this issue in its Closing Argument filed on September 30, 1996.
II. RESPONDENT'S AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CHRONIC
TOXICITY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IS SET FORTH IN
RULE.
Petitioner has argued that Respondent erred and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in
imposing monitoring requirements for chronic toxicity at outfall 001 because, it alleges,
Respondent has not set forth toxicity monitoring requirements in rules adopted by the
Environmental Management Commission as is required by G.S. 143-215.66. This argument is
simply incorrect. The imposition of toxicity monitoring requirments for Petitioner's facility is
authorized by at least two rules, specifically 15A NCAC 2B .0505(d)' and 2B .0508(d).
Respondent does not rely, as Petitioner argue, upon an internal policy memorandum from Steve
Tedder to impose toxicity monitoring requirements at outfall 001 of Petitioner's facility.
Section .0505 of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2B,
adopted pursuant to the authority granted by G.S. 143-215.66, is the rule which sets out
monitoring requirements. Paragraph (d) of this rule relates specifically to biological and toxicity
monitoring. Under this rule, Respondent is authorized to require toxicity monitoring whenever it
is necessary, in the opinion of the Director of the Division of Water Quality, to establish (1)
whether the best use of the receiving waters may be impaired or (2) "when toxic substances are
known or suspected to be present in the facility's discharge." 15A NCAC 2B .0505(d). In this
' Respondent incorrectly referred to this rule as 15A NCAC 2H .0505(d) in its Proposed
Findings of Fact and Brief filed on September 30, 1996.

3
case, there is overwhelming evidence that toxic substances were present in Petitioner's discharge
from outfall 002. Petitioner's toxicity monitoring reports to Respondcnt indicate that the effluent
from outfall 002 killed all the organisms in 12 of the 13 toxicity tests which Petitioner conducted
between August. 1993 and October, 1994. The evidence also clearly shows that Petitioner
rerouted its discharge of contact cooling water from outfall 002 to outfall 001 between October,
1994 and February, 1995. Certainly these facts give Respondent reason to suspect that toxic
substances are present in the discharge from outfall 001 and show that Respondent is not
arbitrary or capricious in imposing the toxicity monitoring requirement for outfall 001. Thus,
15A NCAC 2B .0505(d) authorizes Respondent to impose toxicity monitoring requirements for
outfall 001.
Section .0508 of Title 15A, Subchapter 2B lists in tabular form the "minimum tests and
measurements" applicable to standard industrial classifications of activities which discharge to
the wastewater treatment facility. 15A NCAC 2B .0508(a)(1). This rule further provides that
additional tests and measurements may be required to "adequately monitor constituents of the
waste discharge and their effect upon the receiving waters". 15A NCA 2B .0508(b)(2).
In order to use the table of 15A NCAC 2B .0508(d), the classification of the facility "as
determined by the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission must be
known." 15A NCAC 2B .0508(a)(2). There is a provision, set forth at 15A NCAC 2B
.0505(c)(2), referring to the required tests and measurements for SIC Codes not listed in the rule.
It authorizes the Director to prescribe whatever tests and measurements are necessary to properly
monitor the quantity or quality or waste discharges resulting from any activity not included in the
SIC groups set forth in the rule. 15A NCAC 2B .0505(c)(2).

4
The SIC Code which Respondent used to evaluate Petitioner's facility, 3496,2 is listed in
the table at 15A NCAC 2B .0508(d). The rule for SIC code 3496, and for every other SIC code
listed in the rule. contains a ** notation under the toxicity requirements, referring the reader to
the end of the rule where the following text is set out:
**
This s
Specific test type, conditions, and limitations will be defined by permit.
Toxicity limits will be applied to all major discharges and all discharges of
complex wastewater. Toxicity limitations and monitoring requirments may
be applied to permits for other discharges when, in the opinion of the
Director, such discharge may impair the best use of the receiving water by
the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts.
lso pertains to SIC code 4952, which is the SIC code that the EMC
assigned by rule to every industrial establishment or unit of government which collects or
discharges domestic waste. 15A NCAC 2B .0504(b) and 2B .0508(d). Because Respondent
evaluated Petitioner's discharge under the SIC Code 3496 and Petitioner has not shown by a
greater weight of the substantial evidence that this SIC code is incorrect, 15A NCAC .0508(d)
also authorizes Respondent to impose toxicity monitoring requirements for outfall 001.3
This rule provides two bases of authority to Respondent for imposing toxicity monitoring
requirements upon Petitioner's outfall 001. First, this rule authorizes the Director to use his
discretion in imposing toxicity permit limitations and monitoring requirements when he believes
that toxic substances may be discharged in toxic amounts. For the same reasons discussed
2 The evidence presented at the hearing is not conclusive as to the SIC code for Petitioner's
facility. Petitioner presented evidence that its SIC code is 3357, and Respondent presented
evidence that Petitioner's SIC Code is 3496. Petitioner had a duty, however, pursuant to 15A
NCAC 2B .0508(c)(1) to inform Respondent that the SIC code for its facility was not covered by
the tables set forth in 15A NCAC 2B .0508(d), which Petitioner failed to fulfill.
3 See page 6 infra for Respondent's argument that even if the SIC code is 3357 as
Petitioner contends, 15A NCAC 2B .0508(c) authorizes Respondent to impose toxicity
monitoring requirements at outfall 001.

5
above, the kno' vn failure of the discharge from outfall 002 to meet toxicity limits and the
rerouting of this discharge to outfall 001, the Director was clearly authorized by 15A NCAC 2B
.0508(d) to impose toxicity monitoring requirements and limits on the discharge from outfall
001.
Second, 15A NCAC 2B .0508(d) provides that toxicity limits will be applied to all major
discharges and all discharges of complex wastewater. The term "complex wastewater" is not
defined in the rule or in the General Statutes. Respondent's witness testified that Respondent
defined the term "complex wastewater" to include all wastewater other than simple domestic
waste with chlorine as an additive. Respondent also introduced into evidence an internal policy
memorandum dated January 22, 1987, which gives the same definition of the term "complex
wastewater." Exhibit R3. The fact that the term "complex wastewater" is not defined in this
rule does not invalidate the rule. See In re Broad & Gales Creek Community Ass'n, 300 NC 267,
266 SE2d 645 (1980). Instead, the court must look to the agency's interpretation of its own rule
and give it due deference unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the rule. Pamlico
Marine Company. Inc. v. N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources. Coastal Resources Comm., 80 NC
App 201, 206 (1986). This principle was recently affirmed by the North Carolina Supreme Court
in a case involving a North Carolina Division of Social Services' policy interpreting federal
regulations pertaining to the AFDC program. Morrell v. Flaherty, 338 NC 230 (1994). In this
case the court quoted extensively from federal law on this point:
It is well established that an agency's construction of its own regulations is
entitled to substantial deference. Our task is not to decide which among several
competing interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose. Rather, the agency's
interpretation must be given controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or
inconsistent with the regulation. In other words, we must defer to the Secretary's
interpretation unless an alternative reading is compelled by the regulation's plain
language or by other indications of the Secretary's intent at the time of the

6
regulation's promulgation. This broad deference is all the more warranted when,`
as here, the regulation concerns a complex and highly technical regulatory
program, in which the identification and classification of relevant criteria
necessarily require significant expertise and entail the exercise of judgment
grounded in policy concerns.
Morrell v. Flaherry, 338 NC at 237-38(citations omitted).
Petitioner's discharge from outfall 001 does not contain simply domestic wastewater with
chlorine as an additive; it also contains contact cooling water. The discharge has become a
"complex wastewater," and Respondent is authorized by this rule to impose toxicity monitoring
requirements upon this discharge. Thus, the portion of 15A NCAC 2B .0508(d) stating that
toxicity monitoring requirements and effluent limits will be applied to all discharges of complex
wastewater provides the second basis in this rule for authorizing Respondent to impose toxicity
monitoring requirements upon the discharge from Petitioner's outfall 001.
Even if the SIC code for Petitioner's facility were 3357 as Petitioner contends, 15A
NCAC 2B .0508(c)(2) would authorize Respondent to impose toxicity monitoring on outfall 001.
This rule authorizes the Director of the Division of Water Quality to prescribe the monitoring he
deems necessary to "properly monitor the quantity or quality of waste discharges" for any facility
whose SIC code is not listed in the rule. 15A NCAC 2B .0508(c)(2). The facts in this case,
where a known toxic discharge was rerouted from outfall 002 to outfall 001, would clearly
permit the Director to impose toxicity monitoring of outfall 001 pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B
.0508(c)(2).
Finally, it is important to note that Petitioner has not challenged the imposition of toxicity
limits and monitoring requirements at its outfalls 002, 003, and 004. The source of the
Respondent's authority to impose toxicity testing on those outfalls is the same as its authority to
impose toxicity testing on outfall 001. (Is this true?)

7
In conclusion, Respondent does not rely on internal policy memoranda to establish its
authority to impose toxicity monitoring requirements. As discussed above, Respondent's
authority to impose toxicity monitoring requirements at Petitioner's outfall 001 is fully supported
by rules that have been duly adopted by the EMC. Petitioner's contentions on this point are
without merit.
III. PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS THAT RESPONDENT'S
POSITION IS ILLOGICAL ARE WITHOUT MERIT.
Petitioner has argued that Respondent's imposition of toxicity limits and monitoring
requirements for outfall 001 is "illogical" because the discharge has been chlorinated and
chlorination increases the likelihood that the discharge will exhibit toxic effects. Petitioner
further argues that Respondent encourages chlorination and that if the discharge exhibits toxicity,
Respondent would be put in the untenable position of discouraging chlorination. (Petitioner's
Closing Argument, pp 9-10)
This argument is simply not correct. Respondent does encourage disinfection of the
domestic effluent. and one, such possible means of disinfection is chlorination. Other means of
urf-rt "iCla t r ) OIon q,frr)
disinfection (such as ...) are acceptable to Respondent, and Petitioner is entitled to install other
means of disinfection. With chlorination as the disinfection system, however, if Petitioner's
effluent from outfall 001 exhibited toxicity, Respondent would not then be placed in an
untenable position. Respondent would simply require Petitioner to correct the toxicity problem.
If the toxicity were due simply to chlorination, as Petitioner hypothesizes, Petitioner could
install, very cheaply, as many other discharges in North Carolina do, a de -chlorination

8
component-(b to its wastewater treatment system. Respondent's position with respect
to disinfection and toxicity is not, therefore, illogical or inconsistent.
Petitioner has also argued that Respondent's position is "illogical" because Respondent's
witness testified that if the discharge from outfall 001 were to enter the receiving tributary of
Terrapin Creek from two separate pipes, as little as five feet apart, Respondent would not require
toxicity testing for either discharge. (Petitioner's Closing Argument, p 10)
This argument is absolutely incorrect and misstates the testimony of Respondent's
witness. Respondent's witness testified that if the contact cooling water (from outfall 002) were
not routed to the wastewater treatment plant and discharged from outfall 001 along with the
domestic waste, then the domestic wastewater discharged from outfall 001 would not receive
64.4..„c&LA.,
toxicity limits and monitoring requirements ,because t e discharge would not be considered a D (/ L .
complex wastewater. Toxicity limits and monitoring requirements would, however, be imposed
upon the separate discharge of the contact cooling water. Such limits would be calculated using
Respondent's standard IWC calculation. Respondent's witness did not testify that it would
permit these two discharges to be separated by as little as five feet. This testimony is entirely
consistent with Respondent's rules and clearly shows that Respondent would have followed the
same rules in imposing toxicity limits in this hypothetical situation as it did in imposing the
toxicity limits Petitioner contests at outfall 001.
CONCLUSION
Respondent has acted in accord with the law and its authority in imposing toxicity limits
and monitoring requirements for Petitioner's outfall 001. Respondent has the statutory duty to
protect the aquatic life in all waters of the State, and the toxicity monitoring requirements and

9
effluent limits have been imposed in order to fulfill that duty. Respondent's authority to impose
those effluent limits and monitoring requirements in set forth in rules duly adopted by the 1:MC,
and Respondent has acted consistently and in accord with those rules. This court should find that
Respondent has not erred, has not exceeded its authority, and has not acted aritrarily and
capriciously in imposing toxicity effluent limits and monitoring requirements at Petitioner's
outfall 001.
Respectfully submitted this the day of October, 1996.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Attorney General
Jill B. Hickey
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
[phone]

RECEWED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OCT 1 19vJ IN THE OFFICOF
COUNTY OF CATAWBA N.C. ATTORNEY GEi�ER.: ADMINISTRATIVE HEEARINGS
Environmental Divis►io: No: 96 EHR 0 0 7 8
COMMSCOPE, INC., )
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) PETITIONER'S PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH )
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, )
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL )
MANAGEMENT )
)
Respondent. )
As requested by the Court during the September 5, 1996
hearing in this case, Petitioner offers the Court its proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
This case was heard in Newton, North Carolina, September 5,
1996 by Administrative Law Judge Beecher R. Gray.
Petitioner:
Respondent:
APPEARANCES
Peter J. McGrath Jr., Esq.
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC
100 North Tryon Street, Floor 47
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-4003
Jill B. Hickey, Esq.
Environmental Division
Office of Attorney General
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
ISSUE
Did Respondent substantially prejudice the rights of
Petitioner, exceed its authority, or act erroneously or
arbitrarily or capriciously, by adding toxicity testing
requirements with respect to Outfall 001 in Permit No. NC0034754
(the "Permit") issued December 29, 1995 to Petitioner by
Respondent.
F:IDOCSIPJMIENVIRONM1179264 1.DOC

WITNESSES
CommScope, Inc. ("Petitioner") presented the following
witnesses:
1. J. Carson Cato Director of Quality
Assurance
CommScope, Inc.
2. David Gillespie
Manager of Environmental
Compliance and Health &
Safety
CommScope, Inc.
The Office of the Attorney General, Environmental Division
("Respondent") presented the following witnesses:
1. David Goodrich Division of Water Quality
Permits and Engineering
2. Larry Ausley Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences
Branch
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were received on behalf of
Petitioner's case:
1. P-1 Petitioner's Application for the Permit
2. P-2 Schematic Diagram of Wastewater Flow at
Petitioner' Facility.
The following exhibits were received on behalf of
Respondent's case:
1. R-1 NPDES Permit No. NC0034754 issued December
29, 1995.
2. R-2 Resume of Larry Ausley.
3. R-3 Memorandum from Steve Tedder dated October 4,
1987.
2
F:IDOCS1PJM'ENV IRONM\179264 1.DOC

4. R-4 NC DEM Wasteload Allocation Standard
Operating Procedures Manual (Excerpt)
5. R-5 "Comparison of Measured Instream Biological
Responses with Responses Predicted Using the
Ceriodaphnia Dubia Chronic Toxicity Test,"
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol.
9, 1990.
6. R-6 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Toxics Control, EPA/404/2-90-001 (Excerpt)
7. R-7 CommScope's Effluent Toxicity Report Forms
from September 1993 through May 1996
8. R-9(a) Calculation of Chronic Toxicity Limit for
Outfall 001 in December 29, 1995 NPDES permit
9. R-9(b) Calculation of Chronic Toxicity Limit for
Outfall 002 in previous NPDES permit
10. R-10 North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure, December
1985, Revised November 1995.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Petitioner has the burden of proving by the greater weight
of the substantial evidence that Respondent acted erroneously,
acted arbitrarily or capriciously, prejudiced Petitioner's
rights, exceeded its authority and jurisdiction and issued NPDES
Permit No. NC0034754 which includes certain conditions,
limitations and requirements to which Petitioner objects for the
reasons set forth in Petitioner's Petition for a Contested Case
Hearing filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings on
January 18, 1996.
Based on a preponderance of the substantial evidence
admitted into the record of this case, the Administrative Law
Judge finds the following to be the facts:
3
F:IDOCST M1ENVIRONM\I79264 1.DOC

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner operates a copper cable manufacturing
facility in Catawba, North Carolina (the "Facility").
2. Petitioner produced evidence that the Standard
Industrial Classification ("SIC") code covering the Facility is
3357. Respondent produced evidence that the SIC code covering
the facility is 3496.
3. Petitioner's operations at the Facility generate
wastewater from various sources, including domestic wastewater
(water from bathrooms and kitchens) and cooling water.
4. The cooling water is generated from cooling sinks
through which fabricated copper cable jacketed in polyethylene or
polyvinyl chloride is passed to allow proper cooling for final
packaging of completed cable product at the Facility.
5. Respondent issued Petitioner National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit No. NC0034754,
effective through December 29, 1995 (the "Old Permit") to
discharge wastewater, including domestic wastewater and cooling
water into unnamed tributary of Terrapin Creek at the Facility.
6. The Old Permit allowed Petitioner to discharge domestic
wastewater at a point designated as Outfall 001 into the unnamed
tributary of Terrapin Creek, and to discharge the cooling water,
along with stormwater run off from the Facility's roofs and
parking lots, into Terrapin Creek at a point designated Outfall
002.
7. Near the end of the effective term of the Old Permit,
Petitioner rerouted the discharge of the cooling water from the
point designated Outfall 001 to the point designated Outfall 002.
After such rerouting, wastewater at Outfall 001 now consists of
approximately 95% domestic wastewater and 5% cooling water.
8. At all times pertinent hereto, Petitioner has treated
its domestic wastewater by various means, including
cholorination, at a wastewater treatment plant located
immediately prior to the point at which Outfall 001 is located.
4
FADOCST.IM1ENV IRONM1179264 1.DOC

9. Respondent, by means of the Old Permit, required
Petitioner to conduct toxicity testing for wastewater discharged
at Outfall 002, but not for wastewater discharged at Outfall 001.
10. Respondent, by means of the Old Permit, required
Petitioner to conduct toxicity testing by preparing a solution
consisting of 19% Respondent's Outfall 002 wastewater and 81%
laboratory water, and placing ceriodaphnia dubia specimens in the
solution for a period of seven days, and determining whether the
solution affected the predicted health and reproductivity of the
test specimens. Petitioner produced evidence that each toxicity
test costs approximately $850 to $1,000. Respondent produced
evidence that each toxicity test costs $250 to $350.
11. As required by the Old Permit, Petitioner conducted
toxicity testing of wastewater discharge at Outfall 002 for the
months from September 1993, through December 1995. Wastewater at
Outfall 002 exhibited toxicity in such tests in all but one of
such months.
12. Petitioner, as required by the Old Permit, reported the
results of all such toxicity tests on the Outfall 002 wastewater
to Respondent. Respondent required Petitioner to take no action
in response to the failure of such toxicity tests.
13. Because the Old Permit was due to expire, Petitioner
filed an application (the "Application") for a new NPDES permit,
indicating in its application that the cooling water would be
discharged through Outfall 001 after the effective date of the
new permit.
14. After receipt of the Application, Respondent issued the
Permit to Petitioner. The Permit requires toxicity testing of
wastewater at Outfall 001. The Permit requires testing of
ceriodaphnia dubia solution consisting of 34% Petitioner's
wastewater from Outfall 001, and 66% laboratory water.
15. At "low flow" conditions in the unnamed tributary of
Terrapin Creek, the aggregate discharge from Outfall 001
constitutes approximately 34% of the tributary flow, and the
cooling water portion of the discharge constitutes approximately
1.7% of the tributary flow. "Low flow" conditions refer to the
minimum average flow for a period of seven consecutive days that
has an average occurrence of once in ten years, commonly referred
5
F:1D OC S\PJ M\EN V I RON M117 92 64 I . D OC

to as the "7Q10 Flow." See 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0206(a)(1)
16. Petitioner is not certain why wastewater at Outfall 002
failed toxicity testing under the Old Permit, but suspects
toxicity was caused by constituents entering the wastewater
stream from the faculty parking lot or roof.
17. Petitioner has conducted toxicity testing upon its
cooling water and in such tests, the cooling water exhibits no
toxicity.
18. Respondent is uncertain of the cause of toxicity
exhibited by wastewater from Outfall 002.
19. Respondent does not typically require toxicity tests
for discharges consisting solely of domestic wastewater or solely
of nontoxic cooling water.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known
at the Clean Water Act ("CWA") 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et seq ,
prohibits the discharge of pollutants (as defined in the CWA)
into waters of the United States without a NPDES permit.
2. The CWA authorizes the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (the "EPA") to issue NPDES permits. For
discharges of pollutants into the waters of North Carolina, the
EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR").
3. The Respondent is the division of DEHNR which issues
NPDES permits under the NPDES authority delegated by the EPA.
4. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.66 provides that Respondent
may impose such monitoring requirements upon NPDES permitees as
the Respondent may require by rule.
5. The Respondent's rule providing for NPDES permit
monitoring requirements is 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0508.
6. If the Facility is classified under SIC Code 3469, Rule
.0508 allows Respondent to require toxicity testing at Outfall
001 if the discharge at Outfall 001 is "complex wastewater."
6
F:1DOCS\PJMEN V I RON M1 179264 I .DOC

Rule .0508 does not define the term "complex wastewater."
7. If the Facility is classified at SIC Code 3357, Rule
.0508 allows Respondent to require toxicity testing if necessary
"to properly monitor the quantity or quality of waste discharges"
at Outfall 001, and "to properly monitor the effect of the
discharges upon the waters of this state."
8. Respondent's wastewater discharge at Outfall 001 at the
Facility is not complex wastewater.
9. Toxicity testing is not necessary to properly monitor
the quantity or quality of waste discharge from Outfall 001 at
the Facility or to properly monitor the effects of such
discharges upon the waters of the state.
10. Respondent, therefore, exceeded its authority, cited
arbitrarily and capriciously, and deprived Petitioner of rights
and privileges by requiring Respondent, under the Permit, to
conduct toxicity monitoring of wastewater discharge at Outfall
001.
11. Respondent's policies regarding the definition of
complex wastewater, and the sources for which Respondent intends
to require toxicity testing, are not binding on Petitioner,
because the policies have not promulgated as rules in accordance
with the North Carolina Mystery and Procedure Act.
7
F:\DOCSIPJMIENVIRONMU 79264 1.DOC

RECOMMENDED DECISION
The relief sought by petitioner should be granted and the
permit reissued with no .toxicity testing requirement for
wastewater discharged at Outfall 001.
F:IDOCSIPJMIENVIRONMU 79264 1.DOC

ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the Office of Attorney General,
Environmental Division serve a copy of the final decision on the
Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447, in accordance with N.C.G.S.
§150B-36(b).
F:IDOCS\PJM1ENVIRONM1179264 1.DOC

NOTICE
The agency making the final decision in this contested case
is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions
to this recommended decision and to present written arguments to
those in the agency who will make the final decision. N.C.G.S.
§150B-36(a).
This agency is required by N.C.G.S. §150B-36(b) to serve a
copy of the final decision on all parties and to furnish a copy
to the parties' attorney of record and to the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
The agency that will make the final decision in this
contested case is the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission.
Respectfully submitted this 60 day of September, 1996.
/01.4A113111r
Peter " . 1 Grath Fr . '
NC State Bar 13606
MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC
NationsBank Corporate Center
100 North Tryon Street, Floor 47
Charlotte, N.C. 28202-4003
[phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
10
F:IDOCS\PJMIENVIRONM\179264 1.DOC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that on this day, I
served upon the following a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER'S
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, by placing it
in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, as
follows:
Beecher R. Gray
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Drawer 27447
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447
Jill B. Hickey, Esq.
Environmental Division
Office of Attorney General
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
This 3041, day of September, 1996.
11
F:IDOCSIPJMEN V IRONIvf1179264 I .DOC

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CATAWBA
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
HEARINGS CONTESTED CASE
No.: 96 EHR 0078
COMMSCOPE, INC., )
Petitioner, )
v.. ) PETITIONER'S CLOSING
MEMORANDUM
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT )
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, )
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES, )
Petitioner offers the Court this closing memorandum in lieu
of oral closing arguments, as requested by the Court during the
September 5, 1996 hearing on this contested case.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Petitioner operates a copper cable manufacturing
facility in Catawba, North Carolina (the "Facility").
2. Petitioner produced evidence that the Standard
Industrial Classification ("SIC") code covering the Facility is
3357. Respondent produced evidence that the SIC code covering
the facility is 3496.
3. Petitioner's operations at the Facility generate
wastewater from various sources, including domestic wastewater
(water from bathrooms and kitchens) and cooling water.
F:IDOCSIPJMILITIGATI11794 86 1. DOC

4. The cooling water is generated from cooling sinks
through which fabricated copper cable jacketed in polyethylene or
polyvinyl chloride is passed to allow proper cooling for final
packaging of completed cable product at the Facility.
5. Respondent issued Petitioner National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit No. NC0034754,
effective through December 29, 1995 (the "Old Permit") to
discharge wastewater, including domestic wastewater and cooling
water into unnamed tributary of Terrapin Creek at the Facility.
6. The Old Permit allowed Petitioner to discharge domestic
wastewater at a point designated as Outfall 001 into the unnamed
tributary of Terrapin Creek, and to discharge the cooling water,
along with stormwater run off from the Facility's roofs and
parking lots, into Terrapin Creek at a point designated Outfall
002.
7. Near the end of the effective term of the Old Permit,
Petitioner rerouted the discharge of the cooling water from the
point designated Outfall 001 to the point designated Outfall 002.
After such rerouting, wastewater at Outfall 001 now consists of
approximately 95% domestic wastewater and 5% cooling water.
8. At all times pertinent hereto, Petitioner has treated
its domestic wastewater by various means, including
F:IDOCSIPJMU.TTIGAT11179486 1.DOC
2

cholorination, at a wastewater treatment plant located
immediately prior to the point at which Outfall 001 is located.
9. Respondent, by means of the Old Permit, required
Petitioner to conduct toxicity testing for wastewater discharged
at Outfall 002, but not for wastewater discharged at Outfall 001.
10. Respondent, by means of the Old Permit, required
Petitioner to conduct toxicity testing by preparing a solution
consisting of 19% Respondent's Outfall 002 wastewater and 81%
laboratory water, and placing ceriodaphnia dubia specimens in the
solution for a periodof seven days, and determining whether the
solution affected the predicted health and reproductivity of the
test specimens. Petitioner produced evidence that each toxicity
test costs approximately $850 to $1,000. Respondent produced
evidence that each toxicity test costs $250 to $350.
11. As required by the Old Permit, Petitioner conducted
toxicity testing of wastewater discharge at Outfall 002 for the
months from September 1993, through December 1995. Wastewater at
Outfall 002 exhibited toxicity in such tests in all but one of
such months.
12. Petitioner, as required by the Old Permit, reported the
results of all such toxicity tests on the Outfall 002 wastewater
F:IDOCSTJMILMGATA179486 1.DOC
3

to Respondent. Respondent required Petitioner to take no action
in response to the failure of such toxicity tests.
13. Because the Old Permit was due to expire, Petitioner
filed an application (the "Application") for a new NPDES permit,
indicating in its application that the cooling water would be
discharged through Outfall 001 after the effective date of the
new permit.
14. After receipt of the Application, Respondent issued the
Permit to Petitioner. The Permit requires toxicity testing of
wastewater at Outfall 001. The Permit requires testing of
ceriodaphnia dubia solution consisting of 34% Petitioner's
wastewater from Outfall 001, and 66% laboratory water.
15. At "low flow" conditions in the unnamed tributary of
Terrapin Creek, the aggregate discharge from Outfall 001
constitutes approximately 34% of the tributary flow, and the
cooling water portion of the discharge constitutes approximately
1.7% of the tributary flow. "Low flow" conditions refer to the
minimum average flow for a period of seven consecutive days that
has an average occurrence of once in ten years, commonly referred
to as the "7Q10 Flow." See 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0206(a)(1).
16. Petitioner is not certain why wastewater at Outfall 002
failed toxicity testing under the Old Permit, but suspects
F:IDOCSIPJM\LmGAT11179486 1.DOC
4

toxicity was caused by constituents entering the wastewater
stream from the faculty parking lot or roof.
17. Petitioner has conducted toxicity testing upon its
cooling water and in such tests, the cooling water exhibits no
toxicity.
18. Respondent is uncertain of the cause of toxicity
exhibited by wastewater from Outfall 002.
19. Respondent does not typically require toxicity tests
for discharges consisting solely of domestic wastewater or solely
of nontoxic cooling water.
I. ARGUMENT
Petitioner alleges that its rights and privileges have been
substantially prejudiced, and that Respondent exceeded its
authority or jurisdiction and acted arbitrarily or capriciously in
issuing the Permit to Respondent.
The only consideration as to whether Respondent exceeded its
authority is whether DEHNR acted within its statutory authority.
See In re Broad & Gales Creek Community Ass'n, 300 N.C. 267, 266
S.E.2d 645, 654 - 56 (1980). Respondent has those powers
expressly granted to it by the legislature as well as those powers
that are necessarily implied by the legislative grant of
authority. See id. at 654. An agency acts in excess of authority
F:IDOCSIPJMV.mGATI1179486 1.DOC
5

or jurisdiction if it exceeds the authority and power delegated to
it by the legislature. See City of Raleigh v. Stell, 53 N. C.
App. 776, 281 S.E.2d 774, 775-76 (1981). See also In re Judicial
Review By Republican Candidates for Election in Clay County, 45
N.C. App. 556, 264 S.E.2d 338, 339-40, review denied, 299 N.C.
736, 267 S.E.2d 672 (1980) .
Respondent's Internal memorandum is not a rule
Respondent's sole authority to require monitoring of
discharges of waste to the waters of the State is set forth at
N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.66 which states in pertinent part,
"[e]ach monitoring system shall include the collection of water
and air quality data as appropriate from such locations, in such
detail, and with such frequency as required by rule of [DEM] for
evaluating the efficiency of treatment facilities or air cleaning
devices in the effects of discharges or omissions upon the waters
and air resources of the state." (emphasis added) Consequently,
by authority under the statute, and the holding of Broad & Gales
and City of Raleigh v. Stell, supra., DEM may require monitoring
of wastewater only by rule, not internal policy memorandum.
The model administrative procedures for rulemaking, codified
at 26 N.C.A.C. 2A and 2B, apply to all actions of Respondent. 15A
NCAC 1B .0101. The model rulemaking procedure at 26 N.C.A.C. 2A
F:IDOCSIPJM\LITIGATA 179486 1.DOC
6

and 2B consists of a regulatory scheme of periods of notice and
public comment that must be satisfied before binding rules become
effective and enforceable. Such procedural trappings are
conspicuously and obviously absent from the promulgation of the
internal memorandum, Respondent's Exhibit 3, which Respondent
cites as authority for the toxicity monitoring requirements it
seeks to impose on Petitioner's discharge.
Respondent is fully capable of promulgating a binding rule,
however, the capability is restricted to instances where the
statutory rule promulgation procedures are. satisfied. The
internal memo that Respondent relies on for its authority to
impose toxicity testing requirements on CommScope satisfies none
such requirements. As a result of DEM's failure to promulgate a
rule pursuant to established procedures, no definition of "complex
wastewater" has been established by regulation. Any discretion
that should be afforded to Respondent under its statutory charge
to establish a monitoring and permitting framework is vastly
exceeded by Respondent's contention that its arbitrary definition
of "complex wastewater" as described in its internal memorandum
should have the force of law. In the face of Respondent's failure
to promulgate a rule defining complex wastewater, it must refrain
from attempting to enforce monitoring and permitting requirements
F:IDOCS\PJM\LITIGATI1179486 1.DOC
7

dependent upon unreasonable and arbitrary definitions of critical
terms.
The definition of "complex" found in The Random House
Dictionary of the English language includes: "composed of
interconnected parts; compound; composite; a complex highway
system; characterized by a very complicated or involved
arrangement of parts, units, etc.; a complex machine; so
complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with;
a complex problem; an intricate or complicated association or
assemblage of related things, parts, units, etc.; the entire
complex of our educations system." To construe the term "complex
wastewater" to include any wastewater other than domestic
wastewater, wastewater including chlorine or non -contact cooling
water, swimming pool filter backwater, water filtration backwater,
mini-dewatering, sand dredging, seafood packaging, laundromats,
car washes, wastes, aquaculture facilities, rock guarries and gem
mines. Memorandum from Steve Tedder, Division of Environmental
Management, to Regional Water Quality Supervisors, Trevor
Clements, Dennis Ramsey and Ken Eagleson, dated October 4, 1991,
regarding Permit Whole Effluent Toxicity Requirement Strategy,
Respondents Exhibit 8 (hereafter the "Tedder Memorandum"), as
F:IDOCSIPJMILMGAT11179486 1.DOC
8

respondent does. require such a tortured reading of common English
that it cannot be enforceable as a matter of law.
Respondent's position that Petitioner's wastewater discharge
through Outfall 001, consisting of domestic waste and de minimis
amounts of cooling water, is significantly more complex than
domestic waste and chlorine or any other wastewater Respondent
exempted from toxicity testing pursuant to the terms of the Tedder
Memorandum is clearly untenable and in excess of Respondent's
legal authority when supported by only an internal policy
memorandum. Respondent offers no explanation why, for example,
Petitioner's discharge at Outfall 001 is substantively different
from a discharge of non -contact cooling water or a discharge from
a car wash.
There is no substantial evidence that Respondent's aggregate
discharge of Outfall 001 (before deterioration), Respondent's
domestic wastewater or Respondent's cooling water is toxic. There
is some evidence that Respondent's aggregate discharge of Outfall
001 after chlorination is toxic. This points out the absurdity of
requiring toxicity testing at Outfall 001. Respondent
acknowledges that it encourages chlorination of domestic
wastewater, and does not require toxicity testing thereof. Yet
Respondent now wishes to require toxicity testing of a wastestream
F:IDOCSIPJMIL.ITIGATIU 79486 1.DOC
9

at Outfall 001 that is substantially indistinguishable from
domestic wastewater but encourages chlorination of the wastewater,
thus dramatically increasing the possibility the wastewaster would
exhibit toxic characteristics. Yet what action would Respondent
takes in response to an exhibition of toxicity by the chlorinated
wastewater? Prohibit chlorination? That seems unlikely given
Respondent's position of encouraging chlorination of wastewater.
It makes no sense to test the chlorinated wastewater at Outfall
001 for toxicity. Respondent would require Petitioner to spend up
to $1,000 per month, for no logical purpose, with no statement of
its expectation as to how it will use the results. Such action
surely unjointly burdens Petitioner, and deprives it of property
and privileges.
The illogic of Respondent's position is illustrated in
Respondent's officers' testimony that if Petitioner were to
somehow physically separate the domestic wastewater from the
cooling water at Outfall 001, Respondent would not require
toxicity testing. Respondent's officers testified that if the
discharge of Outfall 001 were to enter the receiving tributary of
Terrapin Creek from two separate pipes, as little as five feet
apart, Respondent would not require toxicity testing for the
discharge of either pipe. Respondent can offer no logical
F:IDOCSIPJMILIT1GATA 179486 1.DOC
- 10 -

explanation as to why Petitioner should spend up to $1,000 per
month, indefinitely, merely because the discharge at Outfall 001
physically flows from one pipe.
RESPONDENT ACTED ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY.
An agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious when it is
whimsical, indicates a lack of careful consideration, or fails to
indicate any course of reasoning or the exercise of judgment.
State ex rel Comm'r of Ins. v. N. C. Rate Bureau, 300 N.C. 381,
269 S.E.2d 547, 573 (1980).
Respondent's toxicity testing requirements are arbitrary and
capricious because it is based upon a private, tortured definition
of the term "complex wastewater," is not based upon any evidence
of toxicity in Respondent's discharge at Outfall 001, and does not
take into account the chlorination of Redischarge. Respondent's
requirements impose a burden to test domestic wastewater upon
Petitioner which Respondent imposes upon practically no other
permittee. The toxicity testing requirement is whimsical, made
without benefit of reasoning and judgment.
The toxicity testing procedures in the Permit are further
evidence that the toxicity testing requirements in the Permit are
arbitrary and capricious Respondent admitted and Respondent's
rules contain that it does not require testing for toxicity of
domestic wastewater Respondent further admitted that it typically
F:1D OCS\PIM\L ITIGATI\ 1794 86 1.DOC

requires tests for toxicity to be performed using a solution of
wastewater and laboratory water, in which the analyzed wastewater
represents the percentage of the laboratory solution equal to the
percentage of the 7Q10 flew of the receiving stream composed of
wastewater in actual conditions at the permitted facility. In
this case, however, Respondent is requiring toxicity testing of
Petitioner's wastewater at a concentration much greater than that
which Petitioner will procure at the Facility. The cooling water,
which is the wastewater for which the toxicity test is required,
will constitute only about 1.7% of the stream flow in the
receiving creek at 7Q10 conditions, yet Respondent seeks to
require Petitioner to test for toxicity using a solution composed
of 34% wastewater from Outfall 001. Respondent seeks to impose
such requirements even after admitting that if Petitioner
physically segregated the cooling water and domestic wastewater at
Outfall 001 into two pipes, separated by as little as five feet,.
Respondent would require testing at a concentration of 1.7%, if at
all. Respondent offers no technical, legal, or public policy
basis for the requirements Respondent seeks to impose. Those
requirements are, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.
F:IDOCSIPJMILmGATIU 79486 1.DOC
- 12 -

III. CONCLUSION
Respondent has the statutory authority to require monitoring
by rule, not memorandum Respondent exceeded its authority by
imposing monitoring requirements in the Permit. The requirements
not only exceed Respondent's authority, but are arbitrary and
capricious, because there is no evidence that (aside from the
chlorine added to Petitioner's domestic wastewater, with
Respondent's approval) any constituent of Petitioner's wastewater
at Outfall 001 is toxic. The Court must, therefore, recommend
that Respondent eliminate requirements for toxicity testing at
Outfall 001 from the Permit.
Respectfully submitted this 3 C) day of September, 1996.
Peter J. McGrath J
NC State Bar 13606
MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC
NationsBank Corporate Center
100 North Tryon Street, Floor 47
Charlotte, N.C. 28202-4003
[phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
F:IDOCSIPIMILITIGATI1179486 1.DOC
- 13 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that the foregoing Petitioner's
Closing Memorandum has been served this day by depositing a copy
thereof in a depository under the exclusive care and custody of
the United States Postal Service in a postage prepaid envelope
and properly addressed as follows:
Beecher R. Gray
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Drawer 27447
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447
Jill B. Hickey
Environmental Division
Office of Attorney General
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
ThisItOL day of September, 1996
F:IDOCSIPIM\LmGAT11179486I.DOC
- 14 -

Cc
CMM 5c,o7 ///AJC �G � i P 7t
/4/if cd- vn ke,Val Cad,01S7 f c -in/if,
7t1 1ssb S 1 kaleL 17'5o%/¢06t .
1(44` e) thro7
4(1 b) ' ° - 2 m.7,7ij
Q5sr h4l a, .
aiJlefpe d� 2Z p03 op*
CAPftei CS'
Fiwa4616
Aer
Ark-4011 161001
4(4~4
&1 49( Li. L /y '7o 5
6ad rz. corL
/ 0 G44,0: co/10
e�-CdL4L- ,*, Gea.C4 �
;5 ,5 he //ny. L
*€ Ildmit it'ot eof °give i/ex4 ife4A4 a/affwyi
ri,Y1(5 rr1 4"r egylAvis t A .
fl3 -2is(&' / .e&f ,-5c )bi % f,.,ef %o -t
444 /4 7' moi'7„--.
X1 cr Tll7j - 15 vim%.. (;?4
44
1/a vu5 /G ceeCes] 71146 reties art- nofgG . 04 won/4-
!(� -� > A f 714r5 Hof e/ri!� c to Gib` %7u-e'6 arm /u/o
,vecaP41/-4 6f /he, // is Cemi,,.2.1g.r3
-� % he dvi dco cL i` /%
/d r

is AA col r%o4
/ 74,5)2L
---> mu r x�- * iy is ii,
4til""' y.
/ i ✓BSI / S e %/ OY /17 f/ 4 #-TOGpy',,'17 or,o;i,:,e,C C
�ri(wlv 4' ' - Ui rh.-resh G av/s.or�
/rwt.I petotf ix Gt
16a .Sj;4191 % / S 7v /iviir k
�r/h�i� � � i5 CoY1si5>`wi J Sl�i �'G / W7 /V A
_ ileakhse let! maize.
/vlls C" 1) Gisc#( .40 c7c2 -. % ko s
1 4/ /rrni u s G, i i./y ,r766
2� L'rnflle.x £Ll5 vgfe.-
Sinittctdc-& 104tescx-s.

6.7 af,av 4A
uhra
<<
�/A/ 7;
rn4vRiAeierzr ;M M' .
m-e-efic- , 4tce5 ed-tr'r 1 cad*.
C. ie7cear#/
42,
• Quf&K mod- $ 5
tf
44/ mit1f al' /110,14".04tcac (k4/)
• Corgi I bulbul • g•ly4/hylepu-•�
z 1 toIAlJ
dee etsd -I) A ,ez- /1,<- 1,4474 Am /L?..
4,arke i h- a 7 ph (7'&sc /2-"
litijkatt doe., get 5Ayi�� l .
AairPCZA/ AY2 r floie.

OkWZ I
Arff -AIWA e4/714. a1/41 akti
Q9i,,6w kuhf? -7-64 '71 AIM/. a'ec ax. IlerAAll
yer•t uk ito1 Si".
Oar, 1,90)4 me- wriesf- Ye,. Ai- et/4Ahii.-00
Ainnz 2:1-)/
ap fr /g9e
Pi. 90 4,5
WhgAtaiii WIZ ,44 difefted
p, ki/ipt
Th e4

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. J. Carson Cato, Ph.D.
CommScope, Inc.
P. O. Box 199
Catawba, North Carolina 28609
Dear Mr. Cato:
EDEHNI
August 14, 1996
Subject: Adjudication Discussion
NPDES Permit NC0034754
CommScope, Inc.
Catawba County
On July 31, 1996, the Division sent you a letter with a draft permit and proposed set effluent
limitations. Upon review of this package, we noticed that the headers for outfall 001 limits pages
were improperly worded. This wording has been corrected, and enclosed are the modified effluent
limits pages for 001. These should be inserted into the existing draft permit and the old pages
discarded.
If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Ms. Susan Robson at
telephone number 919/733-5083, ext. 551.
2
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Permits and Engineering Unit
Office of the Attorney General, Jill Hickey
Sincerely,
1)617/L74/
Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
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

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until THE MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW EXCEEDS 0.015 MGD
or until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge limitations
Monthly Avg.
Flow 0.015 MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 16.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/I
NH3 as N 2.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen**
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Chronic Toxicity***
Weekly Avg.
Monitoring
Measurement
Daily Max Frequency
Weekly
24.0 mg/I 2/Month
45.0 mg/I Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
400.0 /100 ml Weekly
2/Week
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample
Type
Instantaneous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
*Sample
Location
1 or E
E
E
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
E, U, D
U, D
E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
below ALL outfalls
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/I.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 28%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until THE MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW EXCEEDS 0.015 MGD
or until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency Tv, oe Location
Flow 0.015 MGD Weekly Instantaneous 1 or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 30.0 m g/ I 45.0 mg/1 Weekly Grab E
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 m g / I 45.0 mg/1 Weekly Grab E
NH3 as N 4.3 mg/1 Weekly Grab E
Dissolved Oxygen** Weekly Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml Weekly Grab E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine 2/Week Grab E
Temperature Daily Grab E
Temperature Weekly Grab U, D
Conductivity Weekly Grab U,D
Chronic Toxicity*** Quarterly Composite E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
below ALL outfalls
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 28%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 October 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning WHEN THE MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW EXCEEDS 0.015 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency Tyne Location
Flow 0.020 MGD Weekly Instantaneous I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 16.0 mg/I 24.0 mg/I 2/Month Grab E
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I Weekly Grab E
NH3 as N 2.0 mg/I Weekly Grab E
Dissolved Oxygen** Weekly Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml Weekly Grab E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine 2/Week Grab E
Temperature Weekly Grab U,D
Temperature Daily Grab E
Chronic Toxicity*** Quarterly Composite E
Conductivity Weekly Grab U,D
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
below ALL outfalls
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 34%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning WHEN THE MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW EXCEEDS 0.015 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations
Monthly Avg.
Flow 0.020 MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 30.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/I
NH3 as N 4.3 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen**
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity***
Conductivity
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency Type Location
Weekly Instantaneous I or E
45.0 mg/I 2/Month Grab E
45.0 mg/I Weekly Grab E
Weekly Grab E
Weekly Grab E, U, D
400.0 /100 ml Weekly Grab E, U, D
2/Week Grab E
Weekly Grab U,D
Daily Grab E
Quarterly Composite E
Weekly Grab U,D
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL
below ALL outfalls
outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 34%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Page 1
Note for Susan Robson
From: Coleen Sullins
Date: Tue, Aug 13, 1996 3:49 PM
Subject: CommScope
To: Susan Robson
cc: Dave Goodrich
We need to modify the header on the all sets of effluent limits. For the 0.015 MGD the header
needs to state that "during the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until
TIC MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOW EXCEEDS 0.015 MGD " The headers on the 0.020
MGD effluent limits need to state "during the period beginning WHEN THE MONTHLY
AVERAGE FLOW EXCEEDS 0.015 MGD " This needs to be done quickly as the case is
coming up shortly (week of 9/2). Also, I need to talk to you about Richard's exhibit so that when
you take it back to him he understands what needs to be done to modify it correctly. Thanks
Coleen

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. J. Carson Cato, Ph.D.
CommScope, Inc.
P. O. Box 199
Catawba, North Carolina 28609
July 31, 1996
Subject: Adjudication Discussion
NPDES Permit NC0034754
CommScope, Inc.
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Cato:
On June 11, 1996, several people from my staff had a meeting with you and your staff to discuss
the concerns you have regarding the subject permit. This letter outlines the results of that meeting
and the proposed modifications to the permit (see attached effluent sheets and special conditions):
• As requested and discussed, copper monitoring has been eliminated from the permit.
• The monitoring frequency for BOD5 has been reduced to 2/month. After review of the
monthly monitoring data submitted by CommScope, a higher potential exists for the subject
facility to violate TSS, fecal coliform, and ammonia, and thus those are required to be
monitored weekly. In accordance with discussion in the meeting, if CommScope can
demonstrate compliance the limits for the other parameters for a one year time frame, the
Division can develop a revised permit to modify the monitoring frequencies. As requested,
attached is a discussion of our reasonable potential analysis used to evaluated the requested
reduction in testing requirements.
• As was discussed in the meeting, chronic toxicity testing on outfall 001 will be required
because the facility is treating both contact cooling water and domestic wastewater. In the
meeting, you expressed concern over the instream waste concentration (IWC) required in the
toxicity test. The Division cannot alter this IWC calculation, and, therefore, the whole
effluent toxicity test limit is still required. However, the Division has drafted a set of limits
with a lower flow limit which results in a lower IWC as discussed. This will allow you to test
toxicity at a lower limit until such time as your flow increases beyond 0.015 MGD. As
another option, the Division has also included the Phase 11 Whole Effluent Toxicity test in the
permit. Enclosed please find the protocols for that test. This method of testing allows test
results to be averaged during the course of a quarter.
• During the site visit to CommScope, the meeting on June 11, and in a phone conversation
between David Gillespie of your staff and Susan Robson of my staff, the Division
understands that outfalls 002, 003, and 004 all have the potential for contact cooling water
discharge when the pit waters are dumped. Because this is an episodic event, the Division has
determined that a quarterly chronic toxicity test would not be an appropriate test for these
discharges. The appropriate test is an episodic acute toxicity test. The enclosed draft permit
contains the modified test for these three outfalls.
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

The Division hopes these responses resolve and/or clarify your concerns about this permit. If you
still wish to meet with Division representatives to discuss these matters further you should notify
us as soon as possible. If the explanations provided are acceptable, then upon notification from
CommScope, the Division will send a Notice of Petition Withdrawal Form for signature, and upon
receipt, issue a revised permit incorporating the changes listed above.
If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Ms. Susan Robson at telephone
number 919/733-5083, ext. 551.
Sincerely,
.).\,(---------
oward
Jr.,P.E.\7A. Preston
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Permits and Engineering Unit
Office of the Attorney General, Jill Hickey

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 0.015 MGD or until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Measurement
Monthly Avg.
Flow 0.015 MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 16.0 m g / I
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/1
NH3 as N 2.0 mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen**
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Conductivity
Chronic Toxicity***
Weekly Avg.
Daily Max
24.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Frequency
Weekly
2/Month
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
400.0 /100 ml Weekly
2/Week
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample 'Sample
Tyne Location
Instantaneous 1 or E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E, U, D
Grab E, U, D
Grab E
Grab E, U, D
Grab U, D
Composite E
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
below ALL outfalls
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 28%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 0.015 MGD or until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations
Monthly Avg.
Flow 0.015 MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 30.0 mg/1
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 m g / I
NH3 as N 4.3 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen**
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Temperature
Conductivity
Chronic Toxicity***
Weekly Avg.
Daily Max
45.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
400.0 /100 ml Weekly
2/Week
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Quarterly
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL
below ALL outfalls
Type
Instantaneous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite E
*Sample
Location
I or E
E
E
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
E
U, D
U,D
outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 28%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning upon expansion above 0.015 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfail(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Digcharge Limitations
Monthly Avg.
Flow 0.020 MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 16.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/I
NH3 as N 2.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen**
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity***
Conductivity
* Sample locations:
below ALL outfalls
Weekly Avg.
Daily Max
24.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Weekly
2/Month
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
2/Week
Weekly
Daily
Quarterly
Weekly
Requirements
Sample
Type
Instantaneous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Grab
*Sample
Location
I or E
E
E
E
E, U, D
E, U, D
E
U,D
E
E
U,D
E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mgll.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 34%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November I - March 31) Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning upon expansion above 0.015 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Measurement
Monthly Avg.
Flow 0.020 MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 30.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/I
NH3asN 4.3 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen**
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity***
Conductivity
Weekly Avg.
Daily Max
45.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Frequency
Weekly
2/Month
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
2/Week
Weekly
Daily
Quarterly
Weekly
Requirements
Sample "Sample
Type Location
Instantaneous I or E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E, U, D
Grab E, U, D
Grab E
Grab U,D
Grab E
Composite E
Grab U,D
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream approximately 50 feet above ALL outfalls, D - Downstream approximately 100 feet
below ALL outfalls
** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
***Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F @ 34%; November, February, May, August; See Part III, Condition F of this permit.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL
Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 002-Contact Cooling Water. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
Temperature
Total Residual Chlorine***
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
Total Suspended Residue
Oil and Grease
Acute Toxicity****
Lbs/day
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Units (specify) Measurement
Mon. Avg. Daily Max Mon. Avg. Daily Max. Frequency
Monthly
• • * • Monthly
Monthly
5.0 mg/I Monthly
19.0 mg/I Monthly
29.0 mg/I Monthly
*•**
Requirements
Sample *Sample
Type Location
Instantaneous E
Grab E, U, D
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Composite E
THERE SHALL BE NO CHROMIUM, ZINC, OR COPPER ADDED TO THE TREATMENT SYSTEM EXCEPT AS PRE -APPROVED
ADDITIVES TO BIOCIDAL COMPOUNDS (SEE PART 111, CONDITION E).
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream
** The temperature of the effluent shall be such as not to cause an increase in the temperature of the receiving stream of more than 2.8°C and in
no case cause the ambient water temperature to exceed 32°C.
*** Monitoring requirements only apply if chlorine is added to the cooling water.
****Acute.Toxicity (Fathead Minnow, 24-hour) Monitoring, Episodic, See Part III, Condition G.
The permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division of Environmental Management prior to utilizing any biocide in the cooling water (See
Part III, Condition E of this Permit).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored monthly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
•
4

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 003-Contact Cooling Water. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
Temperature
Total Residual Chlorine***
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
Total Suspended Residue
Oil and Grease
Acute Toxicity****
Lbs/day
Discharge Limitations Monitoring
Units (specify) Measurement
Mon. Avg. Daily Max Mon. Avg, Daily Max, Frequency
Monthly
* * * * Monthly
Monthly
5.0 mg/I Monthly
19.0 mg/I Monthly
29.0 mg/I Monthly
Requirements
Sample *Sample
Type l,.ocation
E
E, U, D
E
E
E
E
E
Instantaneous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
THERE SHALL BE NO CHROMIUM, ZINC, OR COPPER ADDED TO THE TREATMENT SYSTEM EXCEPT AS PRE -APPROVED
ADDITIVES TO BIOCIDAL COMPOUNDS (SEE PART III, CONDITION E).
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream
** The temperature of the effluent shall be such as not to cause an increase in the temperature of the receiving stream of more than 2.8°C and in
no case cause the ambient water temperature to exceed 32°C.
*** Monitoring requirements only apply if chlorine is added to the cooling water.
****Acute Toxicity (Fathead Minnow, 24-hour) Monitoring; Episodic, See Part III, Condition G.
The permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division of Environmental Management prior to utilizing any biocide in the cooling water (See
Part I1I, Condition E of this Permit).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored monthly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL Permit No. NC0034754
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 004-Contact Cooling Water. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Flow
Temperature
Total Residual Chlorine***
BOD, 5 Day, 20 °C
Total Suspended Residue
Oil and Grease
Acute Toxicity****
Lbs/day
Discharge Limitations
Units (specify)
Monitoring
Measurement
Mon. Avg. Daily Max Mon. Avg, Daily Max. Frequency
Monthly
* * * * Monthly
Monthly
5.0 mg/I Monthly
19.0 mg/I Monthly
29.0 mg/I Monthly
Requirements
Sample *Sample
Type Location
Instantaneous E
Grab E,U,D
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Grab E
Composite E
THERE SHALL BE NO CHROMIUM, ZINC, OR COPPER ADDED TO THE TREATMENT SYSTEM EXCEPT AS PRE -APPROVED
ADDITIVES TO BIOCIDAL COMPOUNDS (SEE PART 1i1, CONDITION E OF THIS PERMIT).
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D - Downstream
** The temperature of the effluent shall be such as not to cause an increase in the temperature of the receiving stream of more than 2.8°C and in
no case cause the ambient water temperature to exceed 32°C.
***Monitoring requirements only apply if chlorine is added to the cooling water.
****Acute Toxicity (Fathead Minnow, 24-hour) Monitoring, Episodic, See Part III, Condition G.
The permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division of Environmental Management prior to utilizing any biocide in the cooling water (See
Part Ill of this Permit).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored semi-annually at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of.floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Part III Permit No. NC0034754
E. The Permittee shall obtain authorization from the Division of Environmental Management prior
to utilizing any biocide in the cooling water. The Permittee shall notify the Director in writing not
later than ninety (90) days prior to instituting use of any additional biocide used in the treatment
system which may be toxic to aquatic life other than those previously reported to the Division of
Environmental Management. Such notification shall include completion of Biocide Worksheet
Form 101 and a map indicating the discharge point and receiving stream. Concentrations of
chromium, copper, or zinc added to biocides shall not exceed applicable water quality standards or
action levels in the receiving stream, as determined by calculations from the Biocide Worksheet
Form 101 with Supplemental Metals Analysis Worksheet.
F. CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit 48 hour acute toxicity as lethality in an effluent
concentration of 28% at 0.015 MGD, and 34% at 0.02 MGD, nor measure a quarterly arithmetic
average chronic value less than this same percentage of waste. The chronic value will be
determined using the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no statistically detectable
impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a statistically
detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The presence of 48 hour acute toxicity will be
determined using Fisher's Exact Test at 48 hours from test initiation. Collection methods,
exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are defined in: The North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure (December 1995) or subsequent versions.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using these procedures to
establish compliance with the permit condition. Toxicity testing shall be performed during the
months of November, February, May, and August. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be
performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first . test of any single quarter measures 48 hour acute
toxicity or a chronic value less than that specified above, then multiple concentration testing shall
be performed, at a minimum, in each of the two following months.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code THP3B for the Chronic Value and TGA3B for the 48 hour Acute Toxicity measure
(Pass/Fail). Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality •
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a quarter in which toxicity monitoring
is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity
(AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the
month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The
report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test

.+. .� vay.7laaab .• awuaa ✓v vu j p V3 11111.1143 111Vi11LV11115 V V %ell%)• a 141111J V LV JLiV11Lt
suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
G. ACUTE TOXICITY MONITORING (EPISODIC)
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a quarterly basis using protocols defined as
definitive in E.P.A. Document EPA/600/4-90/027 entitled "Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms." The monitoring shall be performed as
a Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 24 hour static test. Effluent samples for self -monitoring
purposes must be obtained below all waste treatment.The testing will be performed upon the first
discharge from the facility during each quarter, the quarters defined as the months of January -
March, April -June, July -September, and October -December.
The parameter code for this test is TAE6C. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit
condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was
performed, using the appropriate parameter code. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is to
be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a.quarter in which toxicity monitoring
is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity
(AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the
month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The
report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit
may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require that a test be performed upon the next discharge event.

I' .. L'LI' I Wtli LI'IV'J . 1 - ram r
•I •• • > __
A • ,
•!! =ter• %• ..•' • .
•
�� c 1Who1e Effluent Toxicity Test '?roceoutre.
_•• •• : • >• •July, 1991
..;, :- . ' 1Revise.d.November 1995 :..
•I.
1 •
r ♦1'
a• ••• , • •• r1 L •• .
r r
•
•
,
•1
•
1 Y• • ; If
:•
;• • . 4:
•
•
•
j .arolina Department of .Environment:: Y
nth, and.$atur1 Resources • • • . •
iwsion'of 'Environm• ental. • Management' '
: . ; . > Water:=Quality • Section . .
1• •
•
•
n-a �•r,•oved'for release : • •
• •
•
A. Freston Howard, • Jr.,' .Er;. Director
:,.
••
!, •
1 ,
•
•
Date
•;••
•

North Carolina Phase II
Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure
This procedure has been established as a modification of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
document entitled "Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms" (EPA/600/4-85/014) and its subsequent edition entitled "Short Term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms,
Second Edition" (EPA/600/4-89/001). A further modification of the methodology outlined here which
utilizes a single effluent concentration and a control treatment to determine compliance is outlined in the
Appendix.
This test procedure has been approved by the Director of the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management under the Fresh Surface Water Classification Standards
(15A.NCAC.2B .0211) as suitable for evaluation of the effects of toxic substances to sensitive aquatic
species. It shall be considered acceptable proof effluents are not causing chronic impacts to aquatic life in
receiving streams due to toxic substances. It does not directly address mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens,
or disease -causing agents and may be superseded by other water quality regulations. Depending on the
designated use and specialized concerns of a particular water body (or effluent discharge), additional
monitoring and/or restrictions (either chemical or biological) may be required. These monitoring
requirements may include, but are not limited to, additional toxicity testing using alternate test organisms,
unmodified EPA protocols, or increased sampling or test solution renewal frequencies.
The test organism used for this test is Ceriodaphnia dubia, a small cladoceran common in lakes and
larger rivers frequently used as an aquatic toxicity test organism. The organism has a rapid life cycle at
25°C, potentially producing numerous offspring during a seven-day period.
The measures of effect used in this test are number of offspring produced and mortality within the
test period. This document will outline approved variations from the EPA procedure. Only those
modifications outlined here or approved by written exception made by NC DEM may be made to the EPA
guidelines. This document is organized into five sections which include: 1) Effluent sampling, 2) Major test
procedures, 3) Interpretation of results, 4) An outline of daily activities to be performed prior to and during
the test period (Table), 5) Appendix, which outlines methodology to determine permit toxicity limit
compliance utilizing one effluent concentration and a control treatment, and 6) Quality Assurance Checklist.
2
. ..

EFFLUENT SAMPLING AND HANDLING
All effluent samples collected for this procedure must be 24-hour composites unless grab samples
or other alternate sampling regimes are specifically allowed by the facility's permit or monitoring
requirement. Sampling should be performed below the last waste treatment process, including
disinfection. There may be no removal of chlorine or any other effluent constituent from the sample by
either chemical or physical methods prior to testing with the exception of allowable filtration of the effluent
through 60 p.m nylon screen or plankton netting and reduction of excess dissolved oxygen to the saturation
level, as per EPA methods.
Sample collection materials may be tempered glass, polyethylene, perfluorocarbon plastics
including Teflon®, 304 or 316 stainless steel, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, Tygon®, or silicone.
All non-perfluorocarbon plastics should be discarded after use. It is the responsibility of the collector to
assure that contamination is not influencing test results. Care should be taken that sufficient sample volume
is collected in order to perform the test.
Effluent samples at all times must be maintained between 0°C and 4°C, inclusive, from collection,
in the case of grab samples, or initiation of collection through the use of an iced or refrigerated sampler, in
the case of composite samples. The single allowable exception to this protocol is the situation in which a
grab sample is collected and delivered to the performing laboratory and used for test initiation no later than
4 hours following the time of collection. All other samples must be received by the certified biological
laboratory at a temperature between 0°C and 4°C, inclusive, or they will be considered invalid.
Each effluent sample collected for this procedure must follow certain timing/scheduling constraints.
By definition of this method, each composite sampling must be performed over two calendar days (Day
One through Day Two, and Day Four through Day Five, as defined in the Table). For purposes of
defining the month in which the test is indicative of compliance, the start date of the first sample for any
given test will be considered the month (and quarter) in which the test was performed. The sampling
schedule is intended to be performed on Monday through Tuesday and Thursday through Friday. Shifting
the sampling days is acceptable, assuming that the relative chronology and sequence of sampling and
testing activities remains constant and the certified biological laboratory is capable of meeting such a
schedule. No sample will be used which exceeds 72 hours of age, measured beginning with collection
time of a grab sample or the final sub -sample of a composite sample and extending to the time that the
sample is used for test initiation or test renewal. "Use" here is defined as the transfer of test organisms to
the solutions. For example, a composite sample initiated on Monday at 10:00 AM and terminated at 10:00
AM on Tuesday should be used with the first renewal by 10:00 AM on Friday. Likewise, the second
sample, initiated at 10:00 AM on Thursday and terminated at 10:00 AM on Friday, must be used for the
final test renewal by 10:00 AM the following Monday. As such, careful coordination should take place
3

between sampling personnel and the certified biological laboratory so that sampling schedules can be
accommodated within protocol constraints of the testing method.
Preparation of split samples must be performed carefully to insure that each laboratory receives and
analyzes similar samples. This similarity should take into account possible variables including, but not
limited to, sample mixing, sample containers, lack of air space in sample containers, sample temperature,
pH, conductance, and total residual chlorine. Additionally, if concurrent analyses are sought on split
samples, performing laboratories should coordinate analytical times and dates. Analyses of split samples
performed at significantly different times or on different dates will be considered as independent analyses.
TEST PROCEDURE
The test shall be performed as a minimum of six treatments exposing 10 test organisms to each.
The first treatment shall be considered the control population and shall be dosed at 0% effluent and 100%
dilution water. One of the minimum of five effluent treatments must be a concentration of effluent mixed
with dilution water which corresponds to the facility's instream waste concentration (IWC). The IWC is
calculated as follows:
Permitted Discharge Volume X 100
% Effluent(IWC) =
Permitted Discharge Volume + 7Q10*
*Where 7Q10 is defined as the lowest average 7 day flow in the receiving stream which has a
probability of reoccurrence every ten years. All terms must have equivalent units.
At least two of the effluent test treatments must be of a lesser effluent concentration than the IWC, with
one being one-half the concentration of the IWC. No concentration should be greater than two times that of
the next lower concentration or less than one half of the next higher concentration. The following are
possible test concentrations for a facility with an IWC of 45%:
22.5%1
35.0%
t
45.0%
70.0%
90.0%
Indicates required concentrations for this example, i.e. IWC and two lower concentrations.
4

Dilution water must be the culture water used to maintain the test population or be suitable for that
purpose. The pH of this water at test initiation and initiation of subsequent test solution renewals must fall in the
range of 6.5-8.5 standard units. Total hardness must measure between 30 and 50 mg/l.
Ten test organisms will be exposed to each treatment in individual test chambers. The test will run
until at least 80% of the surviving control organisms produce three broods of young, not to exceed a seven
day exposure, using the chronology specified in the Table. Note that this criterion puts an effective limit of
20% on the percentage of male organisms allowed in the control treatment. (Termination should be
contingent upon whether the control reproduction mean has reached the minimum acceptable value of 15
young per surviving female.)
The objective of this test is to determine the effluent's No -Observed -Effect Concentration (NOEC),
Lowest -Observed -Effect Concentration (LOEC), and Chronic Value (ChV). The NOEC and LOEC are
determined by identifying which effluent concentrations tested have significant detrimental impact upon
reproduction and/or survival as compared to the control population. The lowest effluent concentration
tested which displays significant impact upon survival or reproduction is the LOEC. The highest effluent
concentration tested which does not display significant impact to either survival or reproduction as
compared to the control population is the NOEC. The ChV is defined as the geometric mean of the NOEC
and LOEC.
After effluent collection on Days One through Two, the test treatments will be prepared and the test
initiated on Day Three (Table). An aliquot of the first composite sample is brought to room temperature
and utilized to mix test solutions, which are then distributed to the test vessels. (Effluent samples are to be
refrigerated at a temperature between 0° and 4° C except for those aliquots drawn for mixing test
solutions.) The pH, dissolved oxygen and temperature must be checked and recorded prior to the
introduction of the test organisms. At all times temperature of the test solutions must be 25°C (±1°C) and
dissolved oxygen must be equal to or greater than 5.0 mg/1.
The test organisms are placed singly in test vessels each containing 15 milliliters of solution. The
organisms must be less than 24 hours old, within 8 hours of the same age, from third or subsequent
broods, and from broods in which the adult produced at least 8 neonates. All test organisms must be
produced by "individual" cultures as defined by "Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Second Edition" (EPA/600/4-89/001).
Neonates are transferred using an eye dropper, such that the organism is never removed from solution.
There should be as little water transferred with the organism as is reasonably practical. All Ceriodaphnia
should be fed at this time and daily thereafter. Each daily feeding will consist of addition of 0.05.ml of
yeast-Cerophyll®-trout chow (YCT) food and 0.05 ml of a solution of the algae Selenastrum
capricornutum (with a cell concentration of 1.71 X 107 cells/ml ) per 15 milliliters of test solution.
Preparation of food supplies are described by EPA/600/4-89/001 (alternative algal media preparation
methods are described in "North Carolina Biological Laboratory Certification/Procedures Document"),
5

though feeding rates have been modified for this protocol. The photoperiod must be maintained at 16
hours of light and 8 hours of darkness.
On Days Four through Five, a second effluent sample is collected to be used for renewal of the test
solutions on Day Eight. Also on Day Five the original test organisms are transferred to new test vessels
containing new control and effluent solutions. The effluent solutions are mixed from the original effluent
sample. This renewal must take place within 72 hours of the final effluent collection time. Mortality must
be recorded at this time. Mortality in the treatment equal to the IWC should be compared to mortality in the
control using the Fisher's Exact Test at a 95% confidence level. Reproduction counts should be performed
in all vessels used during the initial test period (although there are usually no offspring during this phase in
the life cycle). Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH observations must also be made and recorded for
both the old and new test solutions. The new test solutions should receive food at this time.
Days Six and Seven require only that the Ceriodaphnia be fed. Day Eight requires renewal of the
test solutions using the second effluent sample. This renewal must take place within 72 hours of the final
effluent collection time. Mortality, reproduction, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH observations
must be made and recorded. Reproduction of the initial test organisms must be observed both as total
number of young produced as well as brood number of the young produced (i.e. first, second, or third
brood). On Day Nine, the control organisms should be observed for production of the third brood. If 80%
or more of the control organisms have produced a third brood, the test may be terminated. This will also
hold true for observations made on Day Eight. On Day Ten, the test is terminated after making final
mortality, reproduction and chemical/physical observations. Fourth brood neonates will be excluded from
the reproduction totals and subsequent statistical analyses. The test exposure duration will be no greater
than seven days regardless of control organism reproductive success. All entries to test bench sheets
should be initialed by the person making the entry in a manner that will signify which entry was made by
which analyst.
6

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The statistical comparisons for evaluating the test results should be performed as outlined on pages
128-143 and in Appendices B through G in EPA/600/4-89/001. To test for normality of the reproduction
data, the chi-square test for goodness of fit may be used if the Kolmogorov statistic is not available (note
that the Shapiro-Wilks test should be utilized to assess the normality of datasets with 50 or fewer
datapoints). The chi-square procedure is available in most basic statistics books. Confidence levels for each
statistical procedure will be those specified in EPA/600/4-89/001.
As stated earlier, the objective of this test is to determine the effluent's No -Observed -Effect
Concentration (NOEC), Lowest -Observed -Effect Concentration (LOEC), and Chronic Value (ChV). An
"observed -effect" will be defined as either 1) a significant decrease in survival of the treatment organisms as
compared to the control organisms or 2) a twenty per cent or greater decrease in treatment organism
reproduction which is also determined to be statistically different from control organism reproduction.
For data analysis, mean reproduction is calculated by summing the total number of young produced
per treatment until either time of death or end of the experiment and dividing by the number of females
exposed per treatment. Note that fourth brood neonates will be excluded from the reproduction totals.
Percent reduction for each treatment will be calculated by subtracting the mean number of neonates
produced by the treatment organisms from the mean number of neonates produced by the control
organisms, dividing that number by the mean number of neonates produced by the control organisms, and
multiplying by 100% as per the following equation:
Percent Reduction = ((Y — Y;)/Y1) * 100%
where Y, is the control organism reproduction mean and Yi is the treatment organism reproduction mean. A
chronic value (ChV) is determined as the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC from the toxicity test
results. If the lowest effluent concentration is the LOEC, then the ChV will be considered the geometric
mean of the LOEC and one-half the LOEC. If the highest effluent concentration is the NOEC, then the ChV
will be considered the NOEC.
Mortality greater than 20% in the control population will be considered abnormal, and the test must
be declared invalid. Average reproduction in the control population must be greater than or equal to 15
offspring per surviving female, or the test is considered invalid. Also, the control organism reproduction
coefficient of variation (CV) must be less than 40% for the test to be considered acceptable. The CV is
calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the control organism reproduction by the mean of the
control organism reproduction multiplied by 100% as per the following equation:
7

CV = (si I Y1)*100%
where s is the standard deviation and Y is the mean. Note that the mean and standard deviation are
calculated using the number of female organisms initially exposed to the control solution, including any
which may have died during the course of the test.
If these tests are being performed as an NPDES requirement or by Administrative Letter, then the
ChV must be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month collection was
begun for the first effluent sample using the parameter code THP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-6445
8

Table
CHRONIC WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TEST PROCEDURE
Day One
On this day, start a 24-hour composite sampling device. Sampling devices should be refrigerated or cooled
by ice.
Day Two
The effluent sample will be collected, sealed, and packaged on ice or refrigerant to maintain a temperature
between 0° and 4° C, inclusive, and shipped to the laboratory where the toxicity test will be performed.
(Alternatively, a grab sample may be collected on this day if the NPDES permit specifies such a sample.)
Day Three
The test treatments will be set up and test organisms introduced. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH
will be measured and recorded. Dissolved oxygen should be >_ 5.0 mg/1, and the temperature should be
maintained at 25°C (±1°C). The total residual chlorine level of the whole sample should be measured and
recorded. Feed Ceriodaphnia.
Day Four
Start second 24-hour effluent composite sample.
Feed Ceriodaphnia.
Day Five
Ceriodaphnia should be -transferred to new solutions of the original sample. Record the time at which the
test organisms are transferred. Mortality and reproduction counts should be performed and recorded at this
time. (There are usually no offspring during this early phase of the life cycle.) Perform chemical/physical
monitoring. Collect and ship second effluent sample. Feed Ceriodaphnia.
Day Six
Refrigerate second effluent sample (0°-4°C).
Feed Ceriodaphnia.
Day Seven
Feed Ceriodaphnia.
Day Eight
Renew all test solutions using second effluent sample prior to the sample reaching 72 hours in age. Record
the time at which the test organisms are transferred. Count and record mortality and reproduction. Perform
chemical/physical monitoring. Measure and record the total residual chlorine level of the second sample.
Feed Ceriodaphnia.
Day Nine
Feed Ceriodaphnia. (Optional: Observe stage of reproduction and terminate test if 80% or greater of control
organisms have produced their third broods.)
Day Ten
Perform final mortality and reproduction counts as well as chemical/physical monitoring.
9

APPENDIX
This appendix provides an optional means of determining compliance by comparing a single
effluent treatment to a control. Discretion should be used when choosing this option. Given that the result
does not produce a no -effect level, an artificial endpoint will be generated which may or may not be
advantageous from a compliance standpoint. The option to perform this variation of the chronic procedure
may only be exercised as the first test of the monitoring quarter. If a failure should result, at least two
multiple concentration tests (one per month) must be performed by the end of the monitoring quarter.
All effluent sampling, test conditions, and test procedures are identical to those outlined in the main
section of this document except for the test concentrations, number of organisms per treatment, and
statistical evaluations of data. Twelve organisms will be used for each treatment. There will be only two
treatments, a control and an effluent concentration equal to the IWC as defined previously. Due to the
limited ability of this modification to define a chronic no -observed -effect level, the test performed using this
appendix procedure may be terminated at 48 hours should the mortality in the effluent treatment
significantly exceed that of the control treatment as determined by the Fisher's Exact test.
The statistical comparisons for evaluating the test results should be performed as outlined in
Appendix H (entitled "Toxicity Screening Test - Comparison of Control with 100% Effluent or Instream
Waste Concentration") of EPA/600/4-89/001, with the exception that reproduction data are to be evaluated
at a 99% confidence level. A failure will be considered as either 1) a significant decrease in survival of the
treatment (effluent) organisms as compared to the control organisms or 2) a twenty per cent or greater
decrease in treatment (effluent) organism reproduction which is also determined to be statistically different
from control organism reproduction. For compliance purposes, a "Fail" result will be averaged with other
quarterly monitoring data as a chronic value (ChV) equal to the geometric mean of the IWC and one-half the
IWC. In the event of a "Pass" result, the ChV will be considered to be a value greater than the IWC
(">XX%"). The ChV must be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month
during which collection was begun for the first effluent sample using the parameter code THP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the same address noted above.
10

QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST
The following table summarizes appropriate test conditions for any Ceriodaphnia chronic toxicity
test performed to fulfill a North Carolina NPDES monitoring requirement. Values recorded outside of these
ranges will result in an analysis being judged a "bad test" upon review by Environmental Sciences Branch
personnel. The information should be used as a checklist for individual tests and does not cover the full
range of quality control practices necessary for a successful completion of this analysis.
Instream Wasfe Concentration(%)
By Permit, SOC, or JOC
Control Mortality
_< 20%
Average Reproduction for Control
>_15 per surviving female
% Control Organisms Producing a Third Brood
80 %
Maximum % Male Control Organisms
520%
Control Reproduction CV
<40 %
Initial Control Solution pH
6.5-8.5 pH units
Minimum D.O. of Control and Treatments
5.0 mg/1
Hardness of Dilution Water
Between 30-50 mg/1
Sample Temperature at Receipt
Between 0°-4°C
Sample Age at Test Initiation & Solution Renewal
<72 Hours
11

References
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-85/014, 162 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Third Edition. EPA/600/4-85/013, 216 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Second Edition. EPA/600/4-
89/001, 249 pp.
12

Division of Water Quality's implementation of the parameter of concern identification
and reasonable potential procedure.
The USEPA requires facilities discharging to waters of the US to monitor for parameters of concern.
Parameters of concern are those parameters expected to potentially be discharged in concentrations to the
receiving water that would have an adverse impact on water quality. To identify parameters of concern for
a facility. it is necessary to research facility processes (including site visits where appropriate) and identify
the chemical compounds utilized at the facility that are expected to be discharged. Following this initial
determination. the human health and/or environmental impacts associated with these compounds expected
to be discharged must be identified. This research effort results in the identification of the parameters of
concern and monitoring will be required for these parameters.
Reasonable potential is then used to determine if parameters of concern should be limited. The reasonable
potential procedure is a method used to determine the potential of a discharge to violate a water quality
standard for a given parameter based on existing data. Thus, reasonable potential can only be used when
the existing discharge monitoring data (for the specific parameter of concern) have a minimum of eight to
twelve data points. In addition, the greater number of data points used, the more accurate the analysis.
Specifically, a parameter of concern is determined to have a reasonable potential to violate a water quality
standard if a calculated maximum predicted effluent concentration is greater than the a»nw'rih1e effluent
concentration.
A statistical analysis (using the existing database of at least 8-12 data points) calculates the maximum
predicted effluent concentration. The allowable effluent concentration is calculated by first multiplying the
instream water quality standard (for the parameter of concern) by the sum of the permitted flow discharged
from the facility and the 7Q10 summer flow. Then this value is divided by the permitted flow discharged
from the facility. If a facility discharges into receiving waters with a 7Q10 summer flow equal to zero, the
allowable effluent concentration is equal to the water quality standard for the specific parameter of concern.
If the maximum predicted effluent concentration is greater than the allowable effluent concentration, the
parameter of concern is given a limit equal to the allowable effluent concentration. If the maximum
predicted effluent concentration is less than the allowable effluent concentration, only monitoring will be
required for the parameter of concern.
In summary, when developing effluent limits and monitoring requirements for NPDES permits, first
parameters of concern are identified and monitoring is required of these parameters. Second, reasonable
potential analysis is conducted (for those parameters where the minimum 8-12 data points exist) and a
determination is made whether the parameter of concern has a potential to violate a water quality standard
and thus be limited.

STEP
l Determine number- of sample points (n).
2 Determine highest value from data set. (Best professional judgement should
he used ` •, the reviewer so as not to use an outlier. Since an outlier will not be
determined statistically. maximum values should rarely be discarded in this
analysis.; _
3 Determine the co -efficient of variation (CV = STD DEV:MEAN
4 Determine the appropriate mulitplication factor to be used by comparing the
number of samples versus the co -efficient of variation (see attached table).
5 Multiply the highest value from the data set (Step 2) by the multiplication
factor determined in Step 4.
6 Compare the value from Step 5 with the allowable effluent concentration,
which is based on instream dilution and the corresponding water quality
standard. EPA recommends that permitting authorities find reasonable
potential when the projected effluent concentration is greater than the
allowable effluent limit.

n
0.1
0.2
' 0.3
0.4
0A
- 0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
_ 1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
24
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
1
1.8
2.5
3.9
8.0
9.0
13.2
16.9
28.4
38.1
482
832
812
102.7
127.8
158.8
180.9
227.4
269.4
318.0
387.5
424.0
485.5
5622
624.2
701.5
7842
_
872.5
0882
toat.s,
1170.4
238.60
2
1.4
2.0
2.9
4.0
5.5
` 7.4
9.8
12.7
18.1
202
24.9
302
382
42.9
60.3
58.3
87.0
78.4
88.5
972
108.6
120.7
133.3
148.8
180.5
175.0
190.0
205.7
221.9
3
1.4
1.9
2.5
3.3
4.4
5.6
72
9.0
11.0
13.4
16.0
19.0
222
25.7
29.6
33.5
37.8
42.4
47.1
522
57.4
62.8
88.5
74.4
80.4
88.6
93.0
99.6
.106.4
' 113.3
4
1.3
1.7
2.3
2.9
3.8
4.7
5.9
72
8.7
10.3
122
14.1
16.3
18.8
' 21.0
23.6
26.3
29.1
32.1
35.1
38.3,
41.5
44.9
48.3
51.8
55.4
59.1
62.9
86.7
70.6
5
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.7
3.4
4.2
5.1
62
7.3
8.6
10.0
11.5
13.1
14.8
16.5
18.4
20.3
22.3
24.4
28.5
28.7
31.0
33.3
35.8
38.0
40.4
42.9
46.4
47.9
60.5
8
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.5
3.1
' 3.8
4.6
5.5
6.4
7.5
8.6
9.8
11.1
12.4
13.8
15.2
16.7
182
19.8
21.4
23.1
24.8
26.5�
282
30.0
31.8
33.6
35.4
372
39.1
7
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.9
3.5
42
5.0
5.8
6.7
7.6
8.6
9.7
10.8
11.9
13.1
14.3
15.5
16.8
18.1
19.4
20.7
22.0
23.4
24.8
26.2
27.6
29.0
30.4
31.9
8
12
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.8.
3.3
3.9
4.6
5.3
6.1
6.9
7.8
8.7
9.6
10.5,
11.5
12.5_
13.6
14.6
15.7
16.8
17.9
19.0
20.1
212
22.3
23.5
24.6
25.8
26.9
9
12
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.7
32
3.7
4.3'
4.9
5.6
6.3
7.1
7.9
8.7
9.5
10.4
11.2
12.1
13.0
13.9
14.8
15.7
16.7_
17.6
18.6
19.5
20.4
21.4
22.3
23.3
10
12
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.0
3.5
4.1,
4.6
5.2
5.9
6.6
7.2
8.0
8.7
9.4_
10.2
10.9
11.7
12.5
13.3
14.1
14.9
15.7
16.5
17.3
18.1
18.9
19.7
20.5
18.4
11
12
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.5
2.9
3.4
3.9
4.4
4.9
5.5
6.1
6.7
7.4
8.0
8.7
9.4
10.0
10.7
11.4�
12.1
12.8
13.5
142
14.9
15.6
16.3
17.0
17.7
12
12
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.7,
4.2
4.7
5.2
5.8
6.3
6.9
7.5
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.9
10.5
11.1
11.8
12.4
13.0
13.6
14.2
14.8
15.5
16.1
16.7
13
12
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.7,
3.1
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.9
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.6
8.1
8.7
9.2
9.8
10.3
10.9
11.4
12.0
12.5
13.1
13.6
14.2
14.7
15.3
14
12
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.6
3.0
3.4
3.8
4.3
4.7
5.2
5.6
6.1
6.6
7.1
7.6
8.1
8.6
9.1
9.6•
10.1
10.6
11.1
11.6
12.1
12.5
13.0
13.5'
14.0
15
12
1.4
1.6
1.9
22
2.6
2.9
3.3
3.7
4.1
4.5
5.0
5.4
5.8
6.3
6.8
7.2
7.7
8.1
8.6
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.4
10.9
11.3
11.8
12.2
12.7
13.1
16
12
1.4
1.6
1.9
22
2.5
2.8
3.2
'3.6
4.0
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.6
6.0
6.4
•6.9
7.3
7.7
8.1
8.5
9.0'
9.4
9.8
10.2
10.6
11.0
11.4
' 11.8
12.2
17
12
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.8
3.1
3.5
3.8
4.2
4.6
5.0
5.4
5.7
6.1
6.5,
6.9
7.3
7.7
8.1
8.5
8.9
9.3
9.6
10.0
10.4
10.8
11.1
11.5
18
12
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.4
3.7
4.1
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.5
5.9
6.3
6.6
7.0
7.4
7.7
8.1
8.5
8.8
9.2
9.5
9.9
10.2
10.6
10.9
19
12
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.3
4.6
5.0
5.3
5.6
6.0
6.3
6.7
7.0
7.4
7.7
8.0
8.4
8.7
9.0
9.3
9.7
10.0
10.3
20
12
1.3
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.5,
4.8
5.1
5.5
5.8
6.1
6.4
6.8
7.1,
7.4
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.6
8.9
9.2
9.5
9.8
21
12
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8_
' 3.1
3.4
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.6
5.0_
5.3
5.6
5.9
6.2
6.5
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.7
8.0
82
8.5
8.8
9.1
9.4
22
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.7
6.0
62
6.5
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.6
7.9
8.2
8.4
8.7
8.9
:23
12
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
22
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.6
4.9
5.2
5.5
5.7
6.0
6.3
6.5
6.8
7.1
7.3_
7.6•
7.8
8.1
8.3
8.5
24
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
22
2.4
2.7
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.1
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.3
6.6
6.8
7.1
7.3
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.3
25
1.1
1.3
.1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.6
.2.9
3.1
3.4
3.6
3.9
4.1
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.9
6.1
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.5,
7.7
7.9
26
1.1
1.3
1,5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.8,
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.1
4.4
4.6
4.9
5.1
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.3
6.5
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
27
�28
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
' 2.3
2.5
.2.8
3.0
3.2
3.5
3.7
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.4
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.2
3.4
' 3.6
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
52
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.2
29
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.5
' 2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.9
30
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
22
2.4
' 2.6
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.7
5.8
6.0
62
6.4
6.5
6.7
31
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
: 2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
52
5.3
5.5
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.5
32 ,
33
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
• 2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.2
6.3
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
'3.9
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
. 4.9
5.1
5.3
5.4
5.6
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.2
34
-35~
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.1
*2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.8
5.9
6.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
_ 1.7,
1.9
2.1
2.3,
-2.5
2.6
2.8
� 3.0
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.9
5.0
52
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.9
38
_ 1.1
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.1 ,
2.21
.2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7_
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.3i
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.9_
5.1 k
5.2
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.7
37
1.1
.1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.4'
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.4'
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.1
42_
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
5.6
_38
1.1
12
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.0
22
. 2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.8
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.5
39
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.2
7.2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0,
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.9,
5.0
.5.1
5.2
5.3'
40
1.1
1.2_
11.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.2
. 2.3
2.5,
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0,
5.1
5.3,
5.1
41
1.1
1 2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.1
32
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.6
. 4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
4 2
_1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8,
2.0
2.1
.2.3,
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.9
3.0
32
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.3,
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0,
5.0
43
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
'2.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7.
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.3,
3.4'
3.6_
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.9
as
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.4'
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
45
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.4
.3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
42
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
48 __
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.7
2:9
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
47'
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
32
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
' 4.2
4.3
4.4'
4.5
4.6
48
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
' 1.7
1.9
2.0
'.2.1
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9,•
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
49
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.1:
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0_
32
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
42
4.3
4.4
4.5
50
1.1
1.2
1.3,
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
22
242.5
2.6
2.8
2.9r,
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
__„52___
53
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0,
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7,
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9,
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9'
4.0
4.1
4.2
54
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
22
2.3
2.4
2.5
216
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
55
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
.1.9
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
• 2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
32
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.71
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
56
1.1
1 2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1:7
1.8
'1.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
32
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.0
57
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7_
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
58
1.1
1.2
1.3
114
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
32
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.8
59
1.1
12
1.3
1.4_ 1.5
1.6 1.7
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0 3.1
32
32
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.8
60
_ 1.1_ 1.2
1.3
1.4 1.5
1.6' 1.7
1.9
.2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5_ 2.6_ 2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0r 3.1
3.1_ 3.2
3.3_ 3.4
3.5
3.5
3.6_ 3.7
3.7, 3.8
1

. n
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.8 ,
3.7
3.5
3.9
'4
4.1 ,
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.8
4.7
4.8
4.9
5
5.1
5.2
5.3 '
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6
1
1281.0
1307.2
1519.2
1846.8
1780.1
1910.2
2064.0
2214.5
2370.7
2532.7
2700.4
2673.E
3053.0
32s7.8
3428.3
3624.5
3826.3
40534
4246.9
4465.7
461X90.0
4919.9
5155.3
5396.3
5642.6
3804.7
61522
6415.1
6653.4
6057.1
Il 2
255.9
273.7
292.1
310.9
3302
350.1
370.3
391.1
412.3
434.0
458.1
.478.8
501.8
626.0
648.8
672.9
697.5
822.5
647.8
673.5
899.8
728.0
752.8
779.0
807.4
8362
883.3
891.8
920.5
949.E
120.3
127.5
134.9.
142.4
160.0
157.7
165.8
173.8
181.7
189.9
198.2,
208.7
216.2
223.9'
232.8
241.4
250.3
250.3
288.4
277.8
286.9
298.2
305.8
315.1
324.7
334.3
344.0
353.8
363.8
373.8
206.5
4
74.5
78.5
82.6
88.7
90.8
96.0
99.3
103.8
107.9
112.3
116.8
121.2
125.7
1302
134.8
139.4
144.0
148.71
153.4
158.1
162.8
167.6
172.4
1772
182.0
188.9
191.7
198.8
201.5
S
53.0
55.7
58.3
81.0
83.7
68.4I
89.1
71.9
*74.8
77.4
802
83.1
85.9
88.7
91.8
94.5
97.4
100.3
1032
106.1
109.0
111.9
114.9
117.8
120.8
123.7
126.7
129.7
132.7
135.7
6
41.0
42.9
44.8
46.7
48.6
50.5
52.5
54.4
56.4
58.4
60.3
62.3
64.3
66.3
68.3
70.3
72.3
74.3
76.3
78.3
80.3
82.4
84.4
86.4
88.4
90.5
92.5
94.5
96.6
98.6
7
33.3
34.7
362
37.7
39.1
40.61
42.1
43.5
45.0
46.5
48.0
49.5
51.0
.52.4
53.9
55.4
56.9
58.4
59.9
61.4
62.9
64.4
65.9
67.4
68.8
70.3
71.8
73.3
74.8
76.3
8
28.1
29.2
30.4
31.6
32.7
33.9
35.1
36.2
37.4
38.6
39.7
40.9
42.1
43.3
44.4
45.6
46.8
47.9
49.1
50.2
51.d
52.6
53.7
54.9
56.0
57.2
58.3
59.5
60.6
61.8
_ 9
24.3
25.2
26.2
27.1
28.1
29.1
30.0
31.0
31.9
32.9
33.8
34.8
35.7
36.7
37.6
38.6
39.5
40.5
41.4
42.3
43.3
44.2
45.1
46.1
47.0
47.9
48.8
49.7
50.7
51.6
44.0
10
21.3
22.1
22.9
23.7
24.5
25.3
26.1
26.9
27.7
28.5
29.3
30.1
30.9
31.7
32.5
33.3.
34.0
34.8
35.6
36.4
37.1
37.9
38.7
39.4
40.2
41.0
41.7
42.5
43.2
11
19.1
19.8
20.5
21.2
21.9
22.6
23.2
23.9
24.6
25.3
26.0
26.6
27.3
28.0
28.6
29.3
30.0
30.6
31.3
31.9
32.E
33.2
33.9
34.5
35.2
35.8
36.4
37.1
37.7
38.3
12
17.3
17.9
18.5
19.1
19.7
20.3
20.9
21.5
22.1
22.7
23.3
23.9
24.5
25.0
25.6
26.2
26.8
27.3
27.9
28.5
29.0
29.6
30.1
30.7
31.2
31.8
32.3
32.9
33.4
29.91
34.0
30.4
13
15.8
16.3
16.9
17.4
17.9
18.5
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.6
21.1
21.6
22.1
22.61
23.1 '
23.6
24.1
24.6
25.1
25.6
26.1
26.6
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.5
28.9
29.4
14
14.5
15.0
15.4
15.9
16.4
16.8
17.3
17.8
18.2
18.7
19.1
• 19.6
20.0
20.5
'20.9
21.3
21.8
22.2
22.7
23.1
23.5
23.9
24.4
24.8
25.2
25.6
26.0
26.4
26.8
27.2
15
13.5
14.0
14.4
14.8
15.3 ,
15.7
16.1
16.5
16.9
17.3
17.8
18.2
18.6
19.0'
19.4
19.8
20.2
.20.5
20.9
21.3
21.7
22.1
22.5
22.8
23.2
23.6
24.0
24.3
24.7
25.1
18
12.6
13.0
13.4
13.8
14.2
14.6
15.0
15.4
15.7
16.1
16.5
16.8
17.2
17.6
17.9
18.3
18.6
19.0
19.3
19.7
20.0
20.4
20.7
21.1
21.4
21.7
22.1
22.4
22.7
23.0
17
11.9
12.2
12.6
13.0
13.3
13.7
14.0
14.3
14.7
15.0
15.4
15.7
16.0
16.4
16.7
17.0
17.3
17.7
18.0
18.3
18.6
18.9
19.2
19.5
19.8
20.1
20.4
20.7
21.0
21.3
19.9
18.5
18
11.2
11.6
11.9
12.2
12.6
12.9
13.2
13.5
13.8
14.1
14.5
14.8
15.1
15.4
15.7
16.0
16.3
16.6
16.8
17.1
17.4
17.7
18.0
18.3
18.5
18.8
19.1
19.4
19.6
19
10.6
10.9
112
11.5'
11.8,
1 2.1_
12.4,
12.7
13.0
13.3
13.6
13.8
14.1,
14.4
14.7
14.9_
15.2
15.5
15.7
16.0
16.3
16.5
16.8
17.0
17.3
17.5
17.8
18.0
18.3
20
10.1
10.4
10.7
11.0
11.3
11.5
11.8
12.1
12.3
12.6
12.9
13.1
13.4
13.7
13.9
14.214.4
14.7
14.9
15.2
15.4
15.6
15.9
16.1
16.3
16.6
16.8
17.0
17.3
17.5
21
9.6
9.9
102
10,4
10.7
10.9
112
11.5_
11.7
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.7
12.94
13.24
13.4
13.6
13.9
14.1
14.3
14.5
14.8
15.0
15.2
15.4
15.6
15.8
16.0
16.3
16.5
22
92
9.5
9.7
9.9
102,
10.4
10.7
10.9
11.1
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.3,
12.5,
12.7
12.9
13.1
13.3
13.6
13.8
14.0
142
14.4
14.6
14.8
15.0
15.2
15.4
15.5
23
8.8
9.0
9.3
9.5
9.7
9.9
10.2,
10.4
10.6
10.8
11.0
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.6
12.8
13.0
13.2
13.4
13.6
13.8
1
14.0
14.1
14.3
14.5
14.7
24
8.5
8.7
8.9
9.1
9.4_
9.6
9.8
10.0
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11.0
11.2
11.44
11.6
11.8
11.9
12.1
12.3
12.5
12.7
12.9
13.0
13.2
13.4
13.6
13.7
13.9
14.1
13.4
25
8.1
8.3
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.4
9.6
9.7
9.9
10.1
10.3
10.5
10.7
10.9
11.0
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.7
11.9
12.1
12.2
12.4
12.6
12.7
12.9
13.0
13.2
26
8.0
8.3
8.5
8.7,
8.9
9.1,
92
9.4
9.6
9.8
10.0_
10.2
10.4
10.5
10.7
10.9
11.1.
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.7
11.9
12.1
122
12.4
12.6
12.7
12.9
13.0
13.2
27
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.3
8.5
8.7
8.9
9.0
9.2
9.4
9.5
9.7
9.9
10.0
10.2
10.4
10.5
10.7
10.8
11.0
11.1
11.3
11.4
11.6
11.7
11.8
12.0
12.1
12.3
11.8
28
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.1
8.2_
8.4
8.8
8.7
8.9
9.0
9.2
9.4
9.5
9.7
9.8
10.0
10.1
10.3
10.4
10.6
1
10.7
10.8
11.0
11.1
11.2
11.4
11.5
11.7
29
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.3
8.4
8.6'
8.7
8.9
9.0
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.6
9.7
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.1
11.2
11.3
30
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.8
8.0
8.1
8.3
8.4'
8.5
8.7
8.8
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
31
6.7
6.8
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.4
10.5
32
6.5
6.6
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.2,
7.4__
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.0
10.1
9.8
33
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.9,
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.4,
7.5
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
34
6.2
6.3
6.5
6.6_
6.7
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8,
8.0,
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6,
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
r 35
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.1
9.2
38
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
• 37
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.1
62
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
., 7.8
7.9
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
_
38
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.1_
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5,
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8,
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
39
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
40
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.0
8.0
41
52
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4_
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
42
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7 2-'
7 3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
43
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
44
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.2
45
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2,
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
_ 5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
48
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
' 6.6
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.7
47
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.1
52
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.5
48
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
49
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.2'
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5'
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
50
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.4
51
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.2
52
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.1
53
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8_
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
64
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9'
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.6
5.8
5.7
5.9
5.7
5.9
5.7
55
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3'
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
56
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
_57
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.6
58
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4.-
5.3
5.4_
5.3
5.5
59
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5'
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.4
60
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
42
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8_ 4.8
4.8
4.9
4.9_ 5.0_ 5.0 5.1
5.1
5.21
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3

PETER J. MCGMTH JR.
DIRECT D'.AL 704-331-1081
VIA TELECOPICER
MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NATION5BANK CORPORATE CENTER
100 NORTH TMON SrkEE-r FLOOR 47
CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28Z02-4003
June 26, 1996
TELEPHONE [phone]
Facs».ml 704-331-1159
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Ms. Jill B.Hickey
Assistant Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
RE: CommScope, Inc. v. Division of Environmental Management of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources: Office of Administrative Hearings Case
No. 96 EAR 0078
Dear Jill:
This is submitted in our continuing effort to compromise claims disputed in this matter. We
appreciate the time you and the members of the Division of Environmental Management (the
"Division") spent with Carson Cato, Burk Wyatt, David Gillespie and me on June i lth. 1 am writing
to summarize our understanding of the agreements we reached in principle during that meeting (wc
are waiting to study the written proposal of same), and to outline the status of what is, I believe, the
only remaining open issue.
First, we understand that the Division has agreed to delete from CommScope's Permit No.
NC0034754 (the "Permit") requirements for monitoring for copper in discharge from outfalls 001
06. and 002, as identified in the Permit.
es‘it' In addition. we understand the Division has agreed to reduce the frequency of monitoring
required under the Permit for BOD to two times per month. We also understand the Division will
reduce the frequency of monitoring for fecal coliforrn, ammonia and total suspended solids to twice
1 L. per month if CommScope can demonstrate, based upon twelve months of monitoring for any such
parameter, that weekly monitoring is no longer necessary. We understand the Division will provide
CommScope with the Division's written policy describing the statistical analysis by which the
f1' Division determines whether weekly monitoring is necessary.
Thus, it appears that the Permit requirement for toxicity testing for discharges from outfall
001 is the only issue which the parties have not yet resolved. As we stated in the settlement
conference, CommScope asserts that discharge from outfall 001 is not a complex wastestream and
therefore that no toxicity testing at all is required under 15A NCAC 2B.0508. We are aware of no
regulation or written Division policy defining the term "complex wastestream."
F,DO6\PMLETFER\1665041.DOC
20 ' d 01 ES i I ICC VOL 0T-ld unw ad 2V : 60 96,92 Nn r

S
JAL HICKEY
ct
60
(kr'

* CO'J' 3JHd 1d101 *.r
Ms. Jill B. Hickey
June 26, 1996
Pace 2
To resolve this controversy, however, CommScope is agreeable to accepting some
requirement for toxicity testing, but not the requirement outlined in the current draft of the Permit.
CommScope believes that the most appropriate toxicity test would be based on effluent dilution to a
concentration of much less than 34% (assuming, for example, that the discharge of wastewater other
than sanitary wastewater constitutes approximately 5% of the discharge at outfall 001, then
CommScope believes that the effluent dilution percentage for outfall 001 toxicity testing purposes
should be 5% of 34%, or 1.7%). CommScope would also be willing to accept an effluent dilution
based upon the ratio of (i) CommScope's actual (as opposed to permitted) average discharge flow in
the quarter preceding the test to (ii) the sum of (a) CommScope's actual average discharge flow and
(b) the 7Q 10 flow of the receiving streatn. Under either proposal, if the discharge exhibited no
toxicity in such a quarterly test for four consecutive quarters, the requirement for toxicity testing
would be deleted.
1 believe either of these proposals by CommScope would be a reasonable solution. I hope
that CommScope and the Division can come to agreement on one of these proposals. CommScope is
negotiating in good faith and we believe that the Division is negotiating in good faith. If, despite
such good faith negotiations, the parties do not reach agreement, we are prepared to have the issue of
toxicity testing heard by the Administrative Law Judge.
This letter, as well as all statements made during the June 11 th settlement conference,
constitute settlement negotiations within the scope of North Carolina Rule of Evidence 408,
incorporated into the rules of the Office of Administrative Hearings by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-29,
and thus are inadmissible at any hearing in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you at your
earliest convenience.
PJMItsm
cc: Carson Cato
Burk Wyatt
David A. Gillespie
F;'DOCYPJM\LETTER1166504 1.1>OC
Very truly yours,
MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC
Pet McGrath Jr.
CID 'd
01 ES I T I CC 170L 011d dOW dd Zb : 60 96,9Z Nflf

Page 1
Note for Dave Goodrich
From: Coleen Sullins
Date: Mon, Jun 24, 1996 4:26 PM
Subject: Commscope
To: Susan Robson
Cc: Dave Goodrich
I believe that we mmitted to sending out a letter outlining the steps that we were willing to
take, reduced mo toring on BOD5, elimination of copper monitoring, corrections to the
other outfalls to re ect what is actually being discharged (i.e. contact cooling water). This
was going to be d ne in the form of a modified permit for their review. Plus we were going
to send them som information on the phase II tox test procedures, if I recall the meeting
correctly. We ne to get that letter out as this is an adjudication.
According to Kathy Cooper, the judge is looking at the week of 9/2 as the rescheduled date
for the hearing. You should have a meeting maker message on those dates. Coleen

ebr cinVgr
S),\
. 0Sc,,
Sv._satki,
e \
S(--),\A ►' c (p 44A,AQ
Cv�
\A) ur-
cY)).).3,1-) }\,0-1-
F/F ,0Q
A n r,ot)
601- SC -Ai isc)

0//94,
4//4.yi G pie .€J *2i$ / . CC6d S et k, r S
41c aevced .figio, /46 /p./ .
(0.4c/os �Pytt
dog - nysY;47,0&„ k. a45 kZ yr AC 4
.411 Ike/ zoz
is / eteet-c
WyeA4/.., f 440 /$ ewZ oe DC4.
Q✓t cs lam flic, ra44 2o/ (,po . 41,4
Sid
k4,5 frivrout/41-4 , 4,0/4
--�-- p�3 s4/I k d,`4/e .
4=6As &A.;1//;14-1-eet �/ D:
� �
• Wes ` `f $ y
•
5 OLu.
(( SC - oZ2c-
.0ic , -f- .OS2
77 OWC
IC‘Do25

oo - sec�c- mem%
6,
_ __A/4-Ne
R-62AJE--
viP
Cvc-77
W461_4_
5u,coantPyb.5eryl
DLWOaf
Gorr,." $copE
w o,
Nprx c,(FhP
7oy-2'11-6o3Z
•E- 33l-ioYl
Z I -Loz
32(1-?
9iy 733-
2337.2`/%
(9(Y)733 -13x 51 7
7
00a-, ;) ooLJJ-
COS l-C, l 11
G), ko (_1-04) z_Lt (D0,32
- 0.C\ f\)
C 0 Y
LP Coo(;

--
• t
li e t a 6..
— ON
— /VimF.
— g145014PA, Vc4411t (
.........
c2
a
g
0 V
‘A 0

Kruger
• —y
-
-�
i
•-•
• •_
yf_r
/Vic.
v[iry %.- • 'r r
rviv
n(,
vli
,
Li 6-er//f
7 4
�r
Cak
-f
.I'GG"PE
&eir
..
_
A
f
_Pace
fiY
g_ickt
(
=
,��
6✓
it
.
Cpv=
4045
6__
I,,
cue/
1/Try-
flyQ
freer
P
2.
,A)D7
1
%iu
=
aP
AlPtror
t/
kr-
57
0 c
ioi
eAL!'
(,A/
f
re
4 "-:lic
h
SiEF.Cke.
(HANe►c
ir-FaN'
M i �_
iQO/L�f
OAts
/P�"�
my
c
-.
%
cuel
x-
rL
-c`
ft
D
,
I
I
!

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
NPDES GROUP
June 11, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Goodrich
NPDES Group Supervisor
From:
Subject:
Susan Robson
Environmental Technician
CommScope, Inc. analysis
Following are the results of my analysis of the data presented by CommScope,
Inc., who adjudicated the NPDES on several issues:
1. Copper Monitoring: CommScope requested elimination of copper
monitoring from the, permit, stating that their process does not introduce
copper into the wastestream. A site visit and discussions with the site
managers revealed that no copper is allowed to contact water because that
would compromise the integrity of the product. All copper in the water is
in the source well water used by the facility. The conclusion, then, was to
drop copper monitoring from the permit.
2. Toxicity Monitoring: CommScope contested the toxicity test required for
outfall 001. They stated that the amount of contact cooling water to the
domestic waste treatment system was minute. They did not understand
the reasoning behind the requirement nor the increased percent
concentration that the wastewater would have to meet (34%) in
comparison to the concentration that the contact cooling water discharge
alone would have to meet ( 19%). After discussions with the site
managers, they came to understand the idea of "complex waste streams"
but still did not agree with having to test toxicity at the domestic outfall at
that test percentage.
We discussed the idea of CommScope rerouting all of the contact cooling
water to the domestic plant, and slowly bleeding the water through the
system. This would eliminate the additional monitoring from the other
outfalls, and reduce toxicity testing to just one test per quarter at 34%.
During the site visit, we realized that all the other discharge points

discharged contact cooling water, and not condensate. Therefore, the
potential exists for CommScope to have four chronic tox. tests, as well as
the other monitoring requirements not included in previous permits.
Combining the wastestream to be treated through the wastewater
treatment system and discharged through only one discharge point would
benefit both the environment and the company, and also meet NPDES
requirements.
3. Monitoring frequencies: CommScope requested that the monitoring
frequencies for various parameters be reduced back to the requirements in
previous permits. The weekly monitoring frequencies are required for
Class II facilities in accordance with NCAC 15A.02B.0508(d). In addition to
these rules, a reasonable potential analysis was performed on the various
parameters affected by these changes in monitoring frequencies. The
analyses revealed that the discharge did not have a reasonable potential to
violate BOD5, but would have the potential to violate TSS. The data also
reveal that the facility has violated NH3 and Fecal Coliform limits in the
past. Therefore, we could reduce the monitoring frequency for BOD5, but I
would advise that we not reduce the frequencies for the other parameters.

MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Goodrich
NPDES Group Supervisor
From: Susan Robson
Environmental Technician
Subject: CommScope, Inc. analysis
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
NPDES GROUP
June 11, 1996 i5 Goy 1����) �� s��1
01041 ;/ �%II (,��✓�-��� "l L
�n/
1(hc/l Q t I f/� 444 , %L VYI L
Following are the results of my analysis of the data presented by CommScope,
Inc., who adjudicated the NPDES on several issues:
1. Copper Monitoring: CommScope requested elimination of copper
monitoring from the permit, stating that their process does not introduce
copper into the wastestream. A site visit and discussions with the site
managers revealed that no copper is allowed to contact water because that
would compromise the integrity of the product. All copper in the water is
in the source well water used by the facility. The conclusion, then, was to
drop copper monitoring from the permit.
2. Toxicity Monitoring: CommScope contested the toxicity test required for
outfall 001. They stated that the amount of contact cooling water to the
domestic waste treatment system was minute. They did not understand
the reasoning behind the requirement nor the increased percent
concentration that the wastewater would have to meet (34%) in
comparison to the concentration that the contact cooling water discharge
alone would have to meet ( 19%). After discussions with the site
managers, they came to understand the idea of "complex waste streams"
but still did not agree with having to test toxicity at the domestic outfall at
that test percentage.
We discussed the idea of CommScope rerouting all of the contact cooling
water to the domestic plant, and slowly bleeding the water through the
system. This would eliminate the additional monitoring from the other
outfalls, and reduce toxicity testing to just one test per quarter at 34%.
During the site visit, we realized that all the other discharge points

discharged contact cooling water, and not condensate. Therefore, the
potential exists for CommScope to have four chronic tox. tests, as well as
the other monitoring requirements not included in previous permits.
Combining the wastestream to be treated through the wastewater
treatment system and discharged through only one discharge point would
benefit both the environment and the company, and also meet NPDES
requirements.
3. Monitoring frequencies: CommScope requested that the monitoring
frequencies for various parameters be reduced back to the requirements in
previous permits. The weekly monitoring frequencies are required for
Class II facilities in accordance with NCAC 15A.02B.0508(d). In addition to
these rules, a reasonable potential analysis was performed on the various
parameters affected by these changes in monitoring frequencies. The
analyses revealed that the discharge did not have a reasonable potential to
violate BOD5, but would have the potential to violate TSS. The data also
reveal that the facility has violated NH3 and Fecal Coliform limits in the
past. Therefore, we could reduce the monitoring frequency for BOD5, but I
would advise that we not reduce the frequencies for the other parameters.

Tod\ ci-k1 TJ 4 4 -1 o- q5
opse r v -L A ge c ' C (Q,r)ThrCk- okr loofa
Miziv *64- N--ke --Q4-1AAJJ \ „ILA( Oo
tpY 4 ra 1cc
A\Jc)_-) oKI
11- 4 CM-0, i)e;LAS
A. 14I Y f Q. ,3 r &`".:3
Th3c.dca4k \:stA•iiivtD
-.(0 51
Li -2- 9Co
A) cot
4D 3

f
LLD4._.T.Ls4-=-2-7--o- s
-s4- o 6r v ak 4 c&C-- C (.a v,irct
t-)t on >
l bolo
f-f-cCi4-
ovv -4; z y../.s-- GA- ) r 001, .
Clio
56 , 4WatUl
- 22 - 9 3 — 'No Cu Ka
3�
I-17'gq-
1,ID%mCAIQ
( ..t-c
)
\ . cc/ C. ivu.,bs room...)
--9'8
(Lati'room')
.113
(_(\`,.k-)
.5G 3 , (u-vo.-C-DGujtak\-z)
.55ci . (µme' P__z)
. 53 (tAD
A -a)-4\ 2)
.425 Cocc.it,)
Q.(,i- oc._ fO
k.
off
- ' C0.3 iy„ (Q ( o L+ dfoet•oi`
t -2.5 -95 0 . LH
c6.3
.iLo
1a
.31
• l'i
.0
0 c - Of t
0 rf q •'nip (mu) 14(41S RoN, Li.'icij

r919-
, oui
-6
-
.• .cp
,o+3 d kf-fikALy.1-ool

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 1, 1996
Mr. J. Carson Cato, Ph.D.
CommScope, Inc.
P. O. Box 199
Catawba, North Carolina 28609
QEHN_ F1
. �vnRtD-l'�
Subject: Adjudication Discussion
NPDES Permit NC0034754
CommScope, Inc.
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Cato:
On December 29, 1995, the Division of Environmental Management issued Permit No.
NC0034754 to CommScope, Inc, This letter will address your concerns in an effort to reach a
resolution without a formal hearing. The following decisions are a result of our visit to your
facility, the discussions we had, and the information you sent to us on March 28, 1996:
• Copper monitoring - the drinking water source does appear to be high in copper. During our
visit, we gained a better understanding that the contact cooling water does not come in direct
contact with additional copper during the process. Since copper is part of the background
conditions, and since you are able to pass the toxicity tests, we can eliminate this requirement
from the permit.
• The changes in monitoring frequencies are a result of changes in the North Carolina
Administrative Code 15A.02B.0508(d) SIC Number 4952-Wastewater and all facilities
discharging primarily domestic wastewater, which were effective May 13, 1993. All Class II
facilities of this type must sample at the frequencies set forth in theses rules.
• Chronic toxicity testing on outfall 001 - As we discussed in the meeting, because the facility
is treating both contact cooling water and domestic wastewater, toxicity testing will be
required. Also, because the contact cooling water is combining with domestircwwastewater for
a total instream waste concentration of 34%, the toxicity limit is set at 34%.
deeide-te rereu-t
Div sion conid e.eval ate-thhis require en r
We hope these responses resolve and/or clarify your concerns about this permit. If you still wish
to meet with Division representatives to discuss these matters further you should notify us as soon
as possible. If the explanations provided are acceptable, then upon notification, the Division will
send a Notice of Petition Withdrawal Form for signature, and upon receipt, issue a revised permit
incorporating any changes listed above.
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

0
t
If you have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Ms. Susan Robson at telephone
number 919/733-5083, ext. 551.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Permits and Engineering Unit
Office of the Attorney General, Jill Hickey

34754 data evaluation
BOD
NH3
TSS 1,
Feca l)
5
0.1
7
10
4
0.19
3.5
2
5.8
0.1
6
2
4.1
0.1
4.5
2
2
0.21
6
19
2
0.2
5
2500
2.6
0.17
3
7
2.6
0.11
4
0
2
0.4
3
0
2
0.25
4
0
6.5
0.5
9
0
7.4
0.2
.34
34
5.4
0.11
7
4
4.3
0.5
11
0
5.5
0.11
8
0
2.7
0.5
6
0
6.7
0.1
20
47
4.7
0.36
8
4
4.3
2.4
7
0
0
0.1
6
2
( 9.1',
0.14
19
0
2.5
0.13
8
180
4.9
0.1
5
6
2.9
0.1
25
5
11
2300
(3.4...
4.125
0.44923077
9.125
204.96
Average
2.10325834
0.76725445
7.69281144
662.26156
Std. Deviation
0.50988081
1.70792942
0 8�04783
3.23117467
Coef. Variance
"CJ
(i nrylv co,,
) .1. ci d . ►'. 31e L c`/_44,-,4
6
aL.!
Q.KA,u irPtc-
96.a `i6 claAA.
mai/
ev"
Page 1