WQ0002702_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018 (16)

FILED
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Nov 19 9 00 AM 2008
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ROWAN
Alchem Inc
Petitioner
VS.
N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Respondent
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
08 EHR 1796
NOTICE OF BEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above -captioned case will be brought on for
hearing before the undersigned administrative law judge as follows:
DATE: January 30, 2008
TIME: 9:00 AM
PLACE: Rowan County Courthouse
Courtroom 5, 3rd Floor
210 N. Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina
RECEIVED
NOV 2 0 2008
N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Environmental Division
1. This hearing will be conducted in accordance with G.S. Chapter 150B and the Rules of
Contested Case Hearings in the Office of Administrative Hearings, copies of which
may be obtained at cost from Molly Masich, Director of APA Services or by accessing
the OAH Web page at http://www.oah.state.nc.us/hearings/#Chapter3.
2. Unless otherwise determined by the administrative law judge, the hearing will proceed
in the following sequence:
a. Call of the case
b. Motions and other preliminary matters
c. Stipulations, agreements, or consent orders entered into the record
d. Opening statements
e. Presentation of evidence; cross-examination
f. Final arguments
3. All parties are hereby notified to bring to the hearing all documents, records, and
witnesses needed to present the parry's case.
NOTE: IF SPECIAL EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PRESENTATION

Alchem history from MRO files
Updated February 20, 2007 by Ellen Huffman
Please note that the author has found files in several sections/divisions due to the different types of permits issued for the
same process i.e., residuals, recycle, and groundwater.
Dec. 6, 1984 — Complaint from City of Rockwell of white color in creek.
May 9, 1985 — A memorandum concerning a complaint investigation of a spill/runoff into creek
(investigated on Nov. 15, 1984) from the ALCHEM plant and drinking water well contamination. All
stream samples showed high concentrations of Al, Fe, Na, and Zn.
Dec. 30, 1985 — WQ MRO complaint investigation report summing up issues from multiple spills
throughout the last 12 months since the Nov. 15, 1984 investigation.
Jan. 2 & 7, 1985 — WQ samples the stream. Samples come back with extremely high concentrations of
Al, Fe, Na, and Zn. (data in file)
Feb. 28, 1985 — Stream samples still show high levels of Al, Fe, & Na.
March 26, 1985 — WQ received another complaint from a resident in the ALCHEM area.
April 1, 1985 - Soil samples showed high levels of Al, Fe, & Na. Well samples taken at the same time
were high in Al & Na. Down stream samples showed high concentrations of Al, Fe, Na, and Zn.
Upstream samples did not show high concentrations of Al, Fe, Na, and Zn. Also discovered the path of _
runoff from ALCHEM property to the stream.
May 9, 1985 — A memorandum from Monty Payne & Jesse Wells, to Bill Jeter, concerning multiple
complaints from neighbors of ALCHEM.
June 11, 1985 —Stream samples, once again, show high levels of Al, Fe, & Na.
Sept. 9, 1985 — During a meeting with WQ and ALCHEM, it was determined that the ponds need to be
emptied and contaminated soil be removed or neutralized. If the lagoon was to be used it m_ ust be lined.
They_also must.submit_aniapplication for apoi j-q harge permit.
Jan. 3, 1986 — WQ staff report (Thurmon Horne) for ALCHEM (APN 005232) The facility has 2
existing (un-permitted) recycle lagoons. DEM & DHR have both conducted investigations regarding
well and groundwater contamination. ALCHEM has had to replace one off site drinking water well,
cleaned areas affected be run-off, and removing all liquid from the lagoons with the intention of
removing the lagoons (excavating and removing contaminated soils). ALCHEM proposes to construct a
new recycle system. The new process will involve mixing bauxite, sulfuric acid, and water in a reactor.
The waste residuals (pH between 2.0 and 2.5) will be pumped to the proposed non -discharge recycle
wastewater treatment facility. The residuals from the facility will be pumped to the retention pond
where LIME will be added to raise the pH to 6 s.u. The applicant proposes to dispose of the

ALCHEM file History
Page 2
residuals in the county landfill. The applicant has failed to submit acceptable detailed engineering
plans and specs as requested.
Recommendations: Considering the past history of this facility, it is imperative that a thorough
evaluation is made prior to permit issuance...
Jan. 7, 1986 — A meeting in Rockwell between DEM & ALCHEM, concerning a need for a permit for
the ALCHEM facility.
Jan. 8, 1986 — DEM WQ MRO memorandum — WQ reviews an application and recommends that
ALCHEM do a thorough investigation of the present subsurface conditions prior to issuance of the
permit.
Jan. 8, 1986 — MRO GW memo from Jesse Wells to Len Bramble. GW recommends that ALCHEM do
a thorough investigation of the present subsurface conditions including directional flow and gradient of
the groundwater, lithologic description and determination of the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, and
sampling of the saturated zone as a requirement before issuance of the permit.
Jan. 30, 1986 - A letter from DENR & Community Development, regarding insufficient data to process
the permit application.
April 10, 1986 — A letter from DENR to ALCHEM regarding Operation of an un-permitted non -
discharge Waste Treatment System.
May 5, 1986 ALCHEM submits a permit application for a tank spill containment area & a sand filter.
May 14, 1986 — DEM Groundwater section memo from Len Bramble to Bill Crawford. Subject
application of new permit APN 0076633 and GW 8680. "We have received copy of the above
referenced application which was sent to your regional office for comment on or about May 12, 1986"...
June 17, 1986 — A letter from ALCHEM to DENR Addendum to application APN007633.
Sept. 12, 1986 — DEM GW — memo. Sub. Permit app. Review, ALCHEM, GW86080. Recommends
issuance of permit with 2 conditions. 1- the sand filter bed must be lined with a geotech fiber and two
layers of 6 mil. (12 mil. total) synthetic liner. 2- any groundwater monitoring deemed necessary by the
department.
September 22, 1986 — A note to file regarding a letter from ALCHEM to Thurmond Horne evaluating a
vacuum filter. Note from staff suggests that the dept. hold the permit application for four weeks before
returning the application to ALCHEM as incomplete.
(what happened to 1987?)

ALCHEM file History
Page 3
Jan. 19, 1988 — A letter from DENR to ALCHEM —Subject: Project Return APN007633. In reference to
application received May 7, 1986.
Feb. 1988 — A etter from ALCHEM to DENR. " I did not realize that our non -discharge Permit was
being held. We decided to put in a sand filter enclosed in a tank..."
July 30, 1989 — A letter from DENR & Comm. Dev. regarding information needed for a review of
ALCHEM Ind. Recycle (WQ0001987) permit to be completed.
October 2, 1989 —A letter from DENR to ALCHEM. Subject: Project Return (WQ0001987).
October 11, 1989 — A staff report from MRO recommends that the ERG and groundwater provide
comments before permit issuance and possible cake sludge storage issues. (Allen Hardee, MRO staff).
January 10, 1990 _DXU.ssues permit WQ0002702 after review of Nov. 17,1989 (permit) application.
(cannot find copy of application in file for this date)
May 4, 1990 — A letter from ALCHEM to DENR (Carolyn McCaskill) referencing permit WQ0002702
and regarding removal of a partition between two lagoons.
May 21, 1990 A letter from ALCHEM to MR. Rex Gleason (MRO) referencing permit WQ0002702 and
regarding installed facilities ready for inspection.
October 25, 1990 — A Notice of Violation regarding a discharge of alum (?) into the creek.
Oct. 8, 1992 — ALCHEM submits a permit application for a recycle system.
Oct. 19, 1992 — An application from ALCHEM received by DEHNR (no application found in MRO
files).
March 11, 1993 — GW memo regarding modification of permit WQ0002702 (concerning) proposed
sludge storage lagoons. GW recommends (two) monitoring wells.
March 23, 1993 — A renewal application from ALCHEM received by DEHNR (no application found in
MRO files).
April 8, 1993 - The amended permit is issued to ALCHEM.
April 20, 1993 — A letter from ALCHEM to DEHNR regarding amendment of permit WQ0002702
including monitoring well requirements and construction of only two lagoons rather than the original
five. Sees no need for groundwater monitoring.
April 20, 1993 — A letter from DEHNR to ALCHEM was conveying groundwater -monitoring guidance.

ALCHEM file History
Page 4
June 9, 1993 —A memo from Don Saffrit, P.E., Asst. Chief for Teck. Support to Ted Bush Asst. Chief,
groundwater section regarding a petition (ALCHEM monitoring wells) with the Office of
Administrative hearings.
June 22, 1993 — A memo from MRO GW (David Eudy) to Jack Floyd regarding adjudication request -
regarding concerns with sulfuric acid in large quantities and past history of non-compliance, there is
ample justification for groundwater monitoring requirements.
June 25, 1993 — A memo from Central GW to MRO GW, regarding adjudication request. "The
groundwater section stands firm with its decision to recommend groundwater monitoring to remain a
part of the permit".
June 30, 1993 — A letter from DEHNR to ALCHEM, regarding groundwater monitoring to stay in the
amended permit.
Sept. 21, 1993 — A letter from ALCHEM to NC EMC asking permission to drop VOC testing
requirements from the permit.
April 6, 1994 — A memo from MRO GW to DEM GQ, acknowledging receipt of a permit renewal
application for ALCHEM WQ0002702.
April 27, 1994 — A memo to DEM GW Compliance Group from Barbara Christian, MRO GW
Supervisor regarding a site inspection (for a permit renewal) on April 26, 1994 that raised several
concerns.
• Raw aluminum ore storage issues
• Monitoring reports indicate that monitoring wells were not purged prior to sampling
• Lack of chemical analyses of the lagoon wastewater
• Inaccurate topographic site map
May 23, 1994 — A memo from Cindy Boyles to Carolyn McCaskill, regarding ALCHEM permit renewal
(permit WQ0002702) reads "run-off into a drainage way still poses a problem to the residents directly
below grade ".
June 27, 1994 — (renewed) permit WQ0002702 issued.
July 11, 1994 — A letter from DEHNR to ALCHEM, regarding (groundwater) monitoring guidance.
October 30, 1995 — A certified letter to ALCHEM from MRO GW regarding proper purging of
monitoring wells prior to sampling (permit WQ0002702).
October 20, 1998 — ALCHEM submits for a permit renewal and modification (permit WQ0002702).

ALCHEM file History
Page 5
Nov. 10, 1998 — A staff report by G.T. Chen includes very little comment. "pending final review and
approval by the SERG and the Groundwater Section, it is recommended that the subject permit
(WQ0002702) be renewed and modified to allow sand by-product to be_mixedwith—clay-•—
December 8, 1998 — Memo from Peggy Findley, MRO, to Dr. Ken Rudo. Request for Health Rick
Evaluation for the public water supply well on the ALCHEM premises.
December 30, 1998 — a memo from Brian Wootton (MRO) to Kim Colson WQS, regarding groundwater
monitoring changes to the ALCHEM permit WQ0002702. Existing monitoring wells MW-1 & MW-2
shall be sampled Feb. & July for water level, aluminum, and pH.
Jan. 21, 1999 — renewal permit WQ0002702 (industrial recycle bauxite process) is issued to ALCHEM.
*****March 1, 1999 - Permit WQ00016338 is issued to ALCHEM for a bauxite (residuals) reuse
Program for the opexatiot� oa_bauxite residualseuse_program (as structural fill) on ALCHEM Inc.'s
property at 8135 Red Road, Rockwell, NC..."
April 25, 2000 — A letter from DEHNR, MRO, to ALCHEM, regarding (permit WQ0002702) field
analysis data (section 4 of the groundwater G-59 form).
Oct. 11, 2001 — A letter from Groundwater MRO, to ALCHEM, regarding an upward trend of aluminum
in MW-1 and MW-2 (permit WQ0002702). Letter asks from ALCHEM to re -sample within 60 days,
including the drinking water supply well that serves the office.
October 17, 2001 — A letter from IAC (Ind. & Agri. Chem. Inc. -parent company of ALCHEM)
regarding the Oct. 11, 2001 letter to ALCHEM...."Alchem manufactures aluminum sulfate. Both cation
and anion are very water-soluable. We have noticed the increase in aluminum values but with no
corresponding sulfate increase. Naturally, we are concerned. However, is it possible that the aluminum
is coming from other sources since there is no increase in the sulfate anion? We are going to follow
your instructions and will be in touch with you".
Jan. 7, 2002 - A Notice of Violation letter, groundwater quality violations.
March 15, 2002 — Notice of Violation for WQ0016338 concerning monitoring reports for sect. III, part
3&4.
April 12, 2002 - A rescission of NOV letter from Peggy Finley, MRO, to ALCHEM.
April 29, 2003 — A complaint received by MRO, from a downstream neighbor of large amounts of
white substance being washed down the creek from ALCHEM property. Wes Bell, MRO investigated.
Spent Bauxite is found to be over 2 feet think in parts of the stream.

April 30 and May 8, 2003 — Investigations had determined that the run-off from ALCHEM had
impacted up to 500 linear feet of a tributary to Second Creek.
ALCHEM file History
Page 6
May 12, 2003 — NOV/NRE for permit WQ0016338 regarding the above complaint investigation.
May 14, 2003 — A letter from DENR MRO to ALCHEM, regarding the NOV stating that the NOV
should have been issued against permit WQ0016338.
May 23, 2003 —The TARA Group is hired to repair erosion control issues at ALCHEM. �f�
May 28, 2003 — A letter from ALCHEM to Rex Gleason, supervisor WQS, MRO in respon e to the May
12, 2003 NOV/NRE. ALCHEM sends an outline of a cleanup plan.
August 8, 2003 — MRO photos reflect no clean up activity.
August 18, 2003 — (WQ0016338) a penalty was assessed in the amount of $5,998.28 for the May 12,
2003 NOV.
August 19, 2003 — A NOV (WQ0016338) was issued for failure to incorporate remedial actions/illegal
discharge to surface water.
Feb. 24, 2004 — ALCHEM submits the annual report for WQ0016338. ALCHEM reports "for the year
2003, we did not accumulate enough silica residual to land apply".
July 29, 2004 — ALCHEM is on a payment plan with AGO for the May 12, 2003 NOV, per Janet Leach.
Aug. 13, 2004 — A letter from DEHNR to ALCHEM, regarding withdrawal of permit application
package for WQ0016338.
Sept. 29, 2004 - MRO receives a request to renew WQ0002702.
Sept. 20, 2004 — MRO receives a request to renew WQ0016338.
October, 2004 — MRO photos show new berm built around fill area.
Oct. 25, 2004 — A staff report by Ellen Huffman, MRO, for both permit renewals, requests that due to
past confusion between the two permits that they be combined for better monitoring of a site with many
compliance issues in the past. There were also many other changes requested.
December 28, 2004 — A renewal permit for WQ0002702 (recycle) is issued with the many changes (as
requested by MRO, but the other permit (WQ0016338, residuals) is not issued. It is currently being held
in Central Offices until the confusion is cleared up.
Permit WQ0016338 was not renewed until Dec. 28, 2006.

ALCHEM file History
Page 7
Dec. 30, 2004 & Jan.5, 2005 — A follow-up investigation by Wes Bell, MRO, revealed stormwater run-
off issues with low pH continuing to impact the stream.
Jan. 12, 2005 — NOV/NRE issued due to continued problems found during the investigation on Dec. 30,
2004 and Jan. 5, 2005.
Jan. 27, 2005 — A letter from ALCHEM to Rex Gleason, MRO, regarding further cleanup of stream.
Letter states that their pH readings are not as low as the readings that Wes Bell had gotten.
Feb. 9, 2005 - A letter from ALCHEM to Rex Gleason, MRO, regarding soils sampling, liming affected
areas, hiring a tree expert, and repairing silt fences.
Feb. 10, 2005 — A letter from ALCHEM to Div. Of WQ, Central Office, regarding the receipt of the new
permit WQ0002702. The permit was dated Dec. 28, 2004 but ALCHEM says that they did not receive it
until Jan. 28, 2005. This letter asks for an extension of 90 days to review the permit. To the writer's
knowledge, Central Office did not reply to this letter.
March 8, 2005 — A letter from ALCHEM to Div. Of WQ, Central Office, regarding many objections to
the permit conditions of WQ0002702. To the writer's knowledge, no response received by Central
Office.
March 10, 2005 — A letter from ALCHEM to Non-Dis. Compliance conveys the annual report for
WQ0016338. This letter states that they did not accumulate enough silica residual to land apply, just like
the 2003 annual report. The writer recalls that ALCHEM stated that they plan to clean out a lagoon (or
two) in the spring which is why the staff report asked for extra pH testing on excavated materials and an
inspection of the lagoon liner.
April 22, 2005 — A Notice of Regulatory Requirements for WQ0002702 was sent regarding the recently
renewed permit. The MRO stated that they considered this permit enforceable as the adjudication period
had passed without comment.
June 8, 2005 — Central Office asks for additional information via registered letter, to be received by July
8, 2005. Additional information requested, included engineering documentation of the fill area and the
berm.
June 21, 2005 — A letter from DWQ MRO Supervisor regarding concern with the consistently low pH
readings measured in the stormwater ditch adjacent to the railroad tracks by unloading station.
July 8, 2005. —No additional information is received.
7

August 2, 2005 - Email from David Goodrich regarding phone call from Mr. Nathan Cook of BOYLE
Engineering, who has been retained by Randall Andrews (ALCHEM) to perform site evaluation of Red
Rd. facility.
ALCHEM file History
Page 8
August 2, 2005 — Copy of Decision of Dismissal (dated July 29, 2005) is received by MRO via fax.
August 4, 2005 — Inspection reflects poor conditions persist including; no freeboard in lagoons, burying
construction debris in the fill area, low pH in recycle system water, and new water line places in fill
area.
August 15, 2005 — Mr. Andrews sends a letter to Shannon Thornburg, (Author of permit), asking for
DWQ to relax the provision regarding pH in the spent bauxite lagoon water.
August 24, 2005 — An email from Larry Ausley, DWQ Laboratory Section, emails results from an ad
hoc experiment of 3 spent bauxite samples collected by Ellen Huffman from sand at the fill area August
23, 2005. See file for preservation and test method. Results were 3.7, 3.5, and 3.0, SUs respectively.
September 20, 2005 — NOV/NRE WQ0002702 was issued for the August inspection for permit WQ
0002702 renewed in December 2004, for permit conditions. A requested site life estimate for the fill
area, and a long-range disposal plan were requested in the renewed permit. This NOV/NRE was never
assessed because the permit is still in the adjudication process.
October 10, 2005 — A letter from ALCHEM stating that they are "sorry for the violations" and "we are
committing the time and the money to correct any problems here" AND "our new permit remains under
appeal".
October 11, 2005 — A letter from Alchem contains a copy of the business card for Nathan Cooke, with
BOYLE Consulting Engineering. The letter also states that James T. Hill, RLS, a surveying company in
Salisbury is re -surveying the property at Red Rd.
October 24, 2005 — ALCHEM receives the Geotechnical Exploration and Analyses report regarding the
earthen berm built around the fill area.
January 6, 2006 — NRE — for the renewed permit WQ0002702, was issued for the requested site life
estimate for the fill area and a long-range disposal plan. This NOV/NRE was never assessed because the
permit was in the adjudication process.
January 26, 2006 — Deficiencies are noted in initial Laboratory Certification Inspection for pH
calibration.

January 30, 2006 — A call to BOYLE Engineering confirms that ALCHEM has received the
geotechnical report regarding the earthen berm and the fill area. The MRO requests a copy of this report
from ALCHEM.
March 1, 2006 — MRO receives the Boyle Engineering report.
ALCHEM file History
Page 9
November 16, 2006 — File note indicates that ALCHEM has hired DELTA Environmental for assistance
with site issues.
December 5, 2006 — An inspection reflects the same site conditions found in previous inspections,
including low pH in all three lagoons, low pH in stormwater collected by the berm, and poor berm
conditions as stated in earlier reports.
December 20, 2006 — A NOWNRE was issued for permit (WQ0016338) conditions, pH issues, and
apparent berm failure (water seeping).
December 20, 2006 — A NOWNRE was issued for permit (WQ0002702) conditions, pH issues,
groundwater, and freeboard.
January 8, 2007 — A letter from Alchem regarding NOWNRE. Alchem states that they were unaware
that the berm is seeping. Alchem also states "it is apparent that there is some very small amount of
seepage under the retaining berm". Alchem asks for a meeting between Alchem and MRO staff to
discuss the issues.
January 11, 2007 — Alchem responds to groundwater violations (WQ0002702 NOWNRE).
January 16, 2007 — MRO emailed and faxed Randall Andrews regarding a date for the meeting
originally scheduled for January 24, 2007 and now moved to January 31, 2007 at 10:30 AM, to
accommodate Mr. Andrews schedule.
January 19, 2007 — A certified letter from MRO responding to the January 8 letter from ALCHEM,
reiterating conditions in the NOWNRE and the need for a alternative disposal plan for the residuals to
be presented at the meeting scheduled for January 31, 2007, and a plan to correct current plant
conditions.
January 26, 2007 — A letter from Alchem, asking the MRO to consider allowing 500 tons of material to
be moved and put into an area near the railroad (?). ALCHEM re -stated the desire to use the fill as
structural fill for chemical mixing tanks.
January 31, 2007 — Meeting held at MRO with Randall Andrews, ALCHEM. Mr. Andrews did not have
an alternative disposal plan. Mr. Andrews said that he would have a plan by February 2, 2007.

February 9, 2007 — A faxed letter from ALCHEM mentions disposal possibilities but no real plan. Asks
again for permission to remove sand to fill area.
February 14, 2007 — MRO letter to ALCHEM reminding ALCHEm that they are not to use the fill area.
February 14, 2007 — A letter from ALCHEM stating that they have retained Delta Consultants to
evaluate existing berm structure. Letter also states "current thoughts are to install a synthetic barrier..."
February 19, 2007 — A letter from ALCHEM regarding NOV for permit WQ0002702. Note: the NOV
was for groundwater violations. The letter did not offer any real solutions but again, requested
permission to remove sand to the fill area that is permitted under WQ0016338.
10

V
f
r-.!
G
� -7 �/ /

Mooresville regional Office
610 %es# Center Avenue
Mooresville, NC 26115
704/663-1699
To: n L j-J° 1(
Fax No#: -7& .3p �� v
From:
Phone:
Message:
Date; f�� 1-�

AliAMP 1.
® NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
"
.)A
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
9111
ELLEN UFFIVIAN
Environmental Specialist Il
Aquifer Protection Section
Division of Water Quality
Mooresville Regional Office [phone]
610 East Center Avenue. Suite 301 Fax: [phone]
Mooresville, NC 28115 [e-mail]
-� 0 � - -2 -a l d�

AILCHEM, INC.
Corporate Office Sales and Manufacturing
2042 Buie Philadelphus Road 8135 Red Road
Red Springs, NC 28377 Rockwell, NC 28138
Tel. [phone]- Fax [phone] Tel. [phone] - Fax [phone]
rfaPsemr.net [e-mail]
October 11, 2005
Ms. Ellen Huffinan
Environmental Specialitst II
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Ms. Huffman:
I am including a copy of the card for Nathan B. Cooke, P.G. with Boyle Consulting Engineering.
He is handling this project for Boyle Engineering. The Surveying Company is James T. Hill RLS in
Salisbury their number is: 704-636-6579. I believe that Mr. Hill could discuss this with you. I am
calling Boyle Engineering Weekly and Phyllis is calling James T. Hill.
We are both being told that we will have the information very soon. I really do not know what to
do except keep on them. Certainly, it will only be a very short time on this.
Best regards,
ALCHEM, INC.
Randall Andrews,
Sales Contact
vll
0
OCT 13
ZAquifer Protection

xe: your iax
,
Subject: Re: your fax
From: 'Randall" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:10:57 -0400
To: 'Ellen Huffman" <[e-mail]>
i will do. thank you.
----- Original Message From: "Ellen Huffman" <[e-mail]>
To: "Randall Andrews ALCHEM" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "andrew pitner" <[e-mail]>; "Peggy Finley"
<[e-mail]>; "DAVID GOODRICH" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:00 PM
Subject: your fax
Hello Randall,
I received a fax of your letter (in response to the latest NOV), today
10/10/05. The fax did not come through very well. Please mail your
response to our office at the address below. Also, please include the
names & phone numbers of the folks at Boyle and at Hill Surveyors who
are working with you to comply with your permit and a time line for when
they plan to furnish information to you regarding your permit.
Thank you,
Ellen
Ellen Huffman
Environmental Specialist II
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Aquifer Protection
610 East Center Avenue
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: 704.663.1699 Fax: [phone]
U
1 of 1 1/10/2006 2:21 PM

ALCHEM, INC.
rate Office
ie Philadelphus Road
ngs, NC 28377
•843-2121— Fax [phone]
innet
October 10, 2005
Ms. Ellen Huffinan
Environmental Specialitst H
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Street, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Ms. Huffinan:
Sales and Manufacturing
8135 Red Road
Rockwell, NC 28138
Tel. [phone]o8 -- Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
We have your letter about the violations at Rockwell, NC. We are sorry that this has occurred. We are doing
everything that we can to try and get this facility so that there are not any more problems.
I can assure you that we are committing the time and money to correct any problems here. I do not think you
will see any of these problems at all in the future. I have numbered each of these items and I am responding:
1. At the time we had to put the Sand in a pile in the middle of the Lagoon. We had apparently
received some recent rain at that time that had caused the sand to spread and be less than 2 feet from
the top. We have corrected this and expect no further problems.
2. We were not aware that we could not put some concrete pieces in this area. We were simply
unaware that this could be a problem. As best as we know all of the foreign objects are removed.
3. Wayne Drye is working to make certain that the ph of all of these collection areas have a ph above
6.0. To the best of my knowledge this has now been corrected.
4. & 5. We are having Boyle Engineering and James T. Hill Surveyors working with us on a plan for
both of these items. We have worked with both companies for several months to get the information
that we need to give you a report.
�trr g let me tell you that we are trying to completely comply with all
of the conditions and obligations in both the old and new permit. Please call me if you have any questions.
Best regards,
ALCHEM, INC.
"U
Randall Andrews,
Sales Contact
vll

King
9 eers
;OVL
Der elopmeni;cltion Pr jec
4340 Taggart Creek Rd,
Suite H NC 28208
Charlotte, p778
Phone: 704-676
Fax-.704-676-0596 * 51599
Cell: 704-507-6262 Nextel: 21
w.bo leconsultin .corn
Nathan B. Cooke, P.G.
senior Geologist
Geotechnical 1econsult ng comervices er
ncooke@boy

Michael F. Easley, Governor
L E: W am oss
North Carolina Department of Environs sources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 28, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL — # 7006 2150 0003 5466 1323
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Randall F. Andrews
ALCHEM, Inc,
8135 Red Road
Rockwell, NC 28138
Subject: Permit No. WQ0016338
ALCHEM, Inc.
Bauxite Residuals Monofill
Surface Disposal Program
Rowan County
Dear Mr. Andrews:
In accordance with your application received on September. 30, 2004, we are forwarding herewith
Permit No. WQ0016338, dated December 28, 2006, to ALCHEM, Inc: for the on -site surface disposal of a
silica residual from bauxite digestion. This permit shall be effective from the'date of issuance until November
305 2011, shall void Permit No. WQ0016338 issued March 1, 1999, and shall be subject to the conditions and
limitations as specified therein.
According to the engineering report prepared by Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC, on October 24,
2005 entitled "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis", the
existing fill at the site is not suitable to provide direct foundation support for the intended construction of
buildings for industrial purposes. The existing berm that contains stormwater runoff from the bauxite fill area
was judged to be unsuitable to remain as constructed. A recent visit to the site by NCDENR personnel
disclosed some seepage locations along the outside of the berm at elevations below the surface of the ponded
stormwater runoff. In view of these inadequacies, the Division is requiring that the berm be replaced or
properly repaired and that the structural and hydraulic integrity of the new or repaired structure be verified by
a licensed engineer (Condition I.1.). The addition of further bauxite material to the fill area is prohibited until
this is accomplished and the engineer's report is received by the Division (Condition 1.2.). Please pay
particular attention to the monitoring and reporting requirements contained in this permit. Failure to establish
an adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required operational information will result in future
compliance. problems.
An Assessment of Civil Penalties and a Notice of. Violation was issued against the facility under
Permit Number WQ0016338 on August 18 and 19, 2003, respectively, in response to a release of residuals into
a drainage/wooded area and an intermittent stream. The permittee was cited for inadequate corrective actions
in response to a release of residuals into an unnamed tributary to Second Creek and the resulting depression of
pH in the water of the tributary. NorthCarolina
Naturally
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

3
An earthen berm has since beena coristruoted Completely around the fill material area to correct the
problem and to keep the fill on the site. Although the fill is currently contained, the capacity of the enclosed
area is limited, and the permittee is required to submit a site life estimate for the fill area, as well as a long-
range plan for residuals disposal that shall include a timetable for implementation, and actively seek alternate
disposal/reuse options with a proposed schedule for implementation, under the conditions of Permit Number
WQ0002702, issued on December 28, 2004. Permit Number WQ0002702 further requires the earthen berm to
be:inairitained;so as to keep the fill and/or accumulated rainwater from leaving the fill area. In addition, this
Permit WQ0002702 also required submittal of a map per Condition 31. within 60 days of permit issuance; the
Division has no record of that submission. Submittal of the information required in Permit WQ0002702 is
riecessary- evaluateA& adequacy of this residuals management system. This permit may be re -opened to
,� address any concerns devel6ped gas a result of the review of this information and the information submitted
under Conditions I.1. and I2. (see below), as well as any additional compliance issues.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you have the right
to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this permit.
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of North Carolina General
Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh; North
Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such demands are made, this permit shall be final and binding.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact David Goodrich at (919)
715-6162.
Sincere ,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Rowan County Health Department
Mooresville Regional Office, Aquifer Protection Section
Aquifer Protection Section, Central Office
Technical Assistance and Certification Unit
Permit Files

NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH
SURFACE DISPOSAL OF RESIDUALS SOLIDS (503 exempt) PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as
amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
Alchem, Inc.
Rowan County
FOR THE
operation of a bauxite residuals monofill surface disposal program on Alchem, Inc.'s property at 8135 Red
Road, Rockwell, North Carolina using approximately 3,000 dry tons per year of residuals from the sources
listed in Condition II 2, with no discharge of wastes to the surface waters, pursuant to the application received
on September 30, 2004, and in conformity with the project plan, specifications, and other supporting data
subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and considered a
part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until November 30, 2011, shall void Permit
No. WQ0016338 issued March 1, 1999, and shall be subject to the following specified conditions and
limitations:
I. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Within ninety (90) days of permit issuance, the berm structure containing the stormwater runoff
from the bauxite fill area shall be replaced, or properly repaired in such a fashion as to address the
concerns noted on page 19 of the report entitled "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
& Earthen Embankment Analysis" issued by Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC on October 24,
2005. The replacement or repairs shall establish structural and hydraulic integrity within the berm
structure. This integrity shall be verified by field examination and testing performed by, or under
the direction of, a licensed engineer. An engineering report attesting to the structural and hydraulic
integrity of the berm structure, that is signed and sealed by an engineer licensed in the State of
North Carolina, shall be submitted to the Division at the conclusion of the verification procedure.
Two copies of this report shall be submitted to the Aquifer Protection Section's Mooresville
Regional Office at 610 East Center Street, Suite 301, Mooresville, North Carolina 28115.
2. The addition of(bauxite-material-to the fill -area is prohibited -until -such -time as -the -berm-
bias been replaced or -properly -repaired and --its structural and hydraulic integrity -have -been verified-,
by field examination and testing performed by, or under the direction of, a licensed engineer, and
the engineering report is received by the Division.

The residuals program. shall be effectively maintained and operated as a non -discharge system to
prevent the discharge of any wastes resulting from the operation of this program.
4. This permit shall become voidable in the event of failure of the residuals program to adequately
protect the assigned water quality standards of the surface waters and groundwaters.
The issuance of this permit shall not relieve the Permittee of the responsibility for damages to
surface or groundwaters resulting from the operation of this program.
In the event that the bauxite surface disposal program is not operated satisfactorily, including the
creation of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall cease the reuse operation and take any
immediate corrective actions as may be required by the Division of Water Quality (Division).
H. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUH EMENTS
The facilities and application sites shall be properly maintained and operated at all times.
2. No residuals other than the following are hereby approved for use in accordance with this permit:
Permit Volume
Source County Number (dry tons/year)
Alchem, Inc. Leached Bauxite Rowan WQ0002712 3,000
Only residuals that are non -hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) shall be disposed in the surface disposal unit.
4. - The pollutant concentrations in the residuals that will be disposed of in the surface disposal unit
shall not exceed the following Ceiling Concentrations (i.e., dry weight basis):
Parameter
Ceiling Concentration
(milligrams per kilogram)
Arsenic
30
Chromium
200
Nickel
210
The following buffer zones shall be maintained:
a. 400 feet between an active surface disposal unit and any habitable residence;
b. 100 feet between an active surface disposal unit and any public or private water supply source,
all streams classified as WS or B, waters classified as SA or SB and any Class I or Class II
impounded reservoir used as a source of drinking water;
c. 100 feettbetween an active surface disposal unit and any stream, lake, river, or natural
drainage way;
d. 50 feet between an active surface disposal unit and property lines (if the original permit was
issued with the buffer distance to property line as 100 feet, updated maps must be submitted
and new acreage delineated for the buffer to be reduced);
e. 10 feet between an active surface disposal unit and any interceptor drains or surface water
diversions (upslope);

f. 25 feet between an active surface disposal unit and any interceptor drains or surface water
diversions (downslope); and
g. 25 feet between an active surface disposal unit and any groundwater lowering and surface
drainage ditches.
Upon classification by the Water Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission
(WPCSOCC), the Permittee shall designate and employ a certified operator to be in responsible
charge (ORC) and one or more certified operator(s) to be back-up ORC(s) of the surface disposal
unit in accordance with 15A NCAC 8G .0201. The ORC shall visit the unit in accordance with
15A NCAC 8G .0204 or as specified in this permit and shall comply with all other conditions
specified in these rules.
A copy of this permit shall be maintained on site when residuals are being conveyed and/or
disposed of in the surface disposal unit during the life of this permit. A spill prevention and
control plan shall be maintained on site at all times.
Adequate provisions shall be taken to prevent wind erosion and surface runoff from
conveying pollutants from the residuals treatment area onto the adjacent property or into any
surface waters.
No residuals shall be utilized for land reclamation within one foot of a seasonal high water table
and within three feet of a permanent water table.
10. No residuals shall be used as pipe bedding for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, or potable water lines.
11. The permittee shall insure that the transportation of the residuals does not cause any adverse
impact, i.e. transport in a leak -proof truck for wet material, ensure that trucks are covered for dry
material, or otherwise protected to prevent any adverse impact resulting from operation.
1.2'. Adequate provisions shall be taken to prevent any surface runoff from occurring at any active or
r, dormant residuals unit. If runoff cannot be prevented, a collection system shall be installed with
the capacity to handle runoff from a 24-hour, 25-year storm event. All collected runoff shall be
disposed in a manner approved by the Division.
13. Adequate provisions shall be taken to prevent wind erosion from conveying pollutants or residuals
from the surface disposal site onto the adjacent property or into any surface waters.
14. Food crops, feed crops and fiber crops shall not be grown on an active residuals unit, unless
approval has been requested and received from the Division.
15. Appropriate measures shall be taken to control public access to the surface disposal unit during
active use and for the 36-month period following closure of the surface disposal unit. Such
controls may include fencing and the posting of signs indicating the activities being conducted at
the unit.
III. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
rt
{ 1.. Any monitoring (including groundwater, surface water, residuals, soil, or plant tissue analyses)
` deemed necessary by the Division to insure protection of the environment will be established and
an acceptable sampling and reporting schedule shall be followed.

2. Proper records shall be maintained by the Permittee tracking all application activities. These
records shall include, but are not necessarily limited to the following information:
a. location of residuals utilization
b. volume of residuals disposed in gallons/year, dry tons/year, or kilograms/year
3. A residuals analysis shall be conducted twice per year from the date of permit issuance by the
Permittee and the results maintained on file by the Permittee for a minimum of five years. The
residuals analysis shall include the following parameters:
Arsenic Nickel Magnesium
Cadmium Selenium Sodium
Chromium Zinc Manganese
Copper Barium pH
Lead Silver Phosphorous
Mercury Calcium Aluminum
After the residuals have been monitored for two years at the above frequency, the Permittee may
submit a request to the Division for a permit modification to reduce the frequency of monitoring
for pollutant concentrations. In no case, however, shall the frequency of monitoring be less than
once per year when residuals are applied to the land.
4. Residuals generated by the approved residuals source -generating facility listed in Condition I.6
shall be analyzed to demonstrate that they are non -hazardous under RCRA every five years. A
corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity analysis, as well as a Toxicity Characteristics Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) analysis shall be conducted on residuals generated by each approved residuals
source -generating' facility. If residuals generated by a particular residuals source -generating
facility are disposed of in the surface disposal unit at a frequency less .than annually, the analyses
shall be required for each calendar year in which a disposal event occurs. The results of all
analytical determinations shall be maintained on file by the Permittee for a minimum of five years.
The TCLP analysis shall include the following parameters (i.e., note the regulatory level in
milligrams per liter in parentheses):
Arsenic (5.0)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (7.5)
Nitrobenzene (2.0)
Barium (100.0)
1,2-Dichloroethane (0.5)
Pentachlorophenol (100.0)
Benzene (0.5)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (0.7)
Pyridine (5.0)
Cadmium (1.0)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (0.13)
Selenium (1.0)
Carbon tetrachloride (0.5)
Endrin (0.02) . .
Silver (5.0)
Chlordane (0.03)
Hexachlorobenzene (0.13)
Tetrachloroethylene (0.7)
Chlorobenzene (100.0)
Heptachlor (and its hydroxide) (0.008)
Toxaphene (0.5)
Chloroform (6.0)
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (0.5)
Trichloroethylene (0.5)
Chromium (5.0)
Hexachloroethane (3.0)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (400.0)
m-Cresol (200.0)
Lead (5.0)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (2.0)
o-Cresol (200.0)
Lindane (0.4)
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) (1.0)
p-Cresol (200.0)
Mercury (0.2)
Vinyl chloride (0.2)
Cresol (200.0)
Methoxychlor (10.0)
2,4-D (10.0)
Methyl ethyl ketone (200.0)
Laboratory analysis as required by Condition HI.1, Condition IH.2, and Condition IH.3 shall be
performed/gathered on the residuals as they are to be disposed of in the surface disposal unit.
Furthermore, analytical determinations made pursuant to the monitoring and reporting
requirements of this permit shall be made by a laboratory certified by the Division for the required
parameter(s) under 15A NCAC 2H .0800 or 15A NCAC 211.1100.

6. Proper red cords,,shall-be-ma-intained by the Permittee;tracking all application activities associated
with the surface disposal unif.—All records shall -be kept by the Permittee for a minimum of period
of five years from the date of disposal. These records shall include, but are not necessarily limited
to, the following information:
a. Date and freeboard level measurements in the surface disposal unit;
b. Source and date or residuals disposed of in the surface disposal unit;
c. Volume of residuals disposed of in the surface disposal unit in gallons per year, dry tons per
year, or kilograms per year;
d. Cumulative volume of residuals disposed of in the surface disposal unit in gallons or cubic
yards (i.e., excluding freeboard);
e. Remaining volume in the surface disposal . unit in .gallons or cubic. yards. (i.e., excluding
freeboard); and
f. An estimate of the remaining useful disposal life for the surface disposal unit in years (i.e.,
excluding freeboard).
Three copies of all required information, monitoring and reporting requirements as specified in
Conditions III 2, III 3, III 4 and 1116 shall be submitted annually on or before March 1 of the
following year to the following address:
. NCDENR-DWQ .
Information Processing Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
6. Noncompliance Notification:
The Permittee shall report by telephone to the Mooresville Regional Office, telephone number
[phone], as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next working day
following the occurrence or.first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following:
a. Any occurrence with the surface disposal program which results in the disposal of significant
amounts of wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic.
b. Any failure of the surface disposal program resulting ina release of material to receiving
waters.
Any time that self -monitoring information indicates that the facility has gone out of
compliance with the conditions and limitations of this permit or the parameters on which the
system was designed.
d. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that renders the facility incapable
of adequate residual treatment.
e. Any spillage or discharge from a vehicle or piping system transporting residuals to the
disposal site.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter form
within five (5) days following first knowledge of the occurrence. This report must outline the
actions taken or proposed to be taken to ensure that the problem does not recur.

IV. GROUNDWATER REQUIREMENTS
1. The COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY for the surface disposal unit is specified by regulations in 15A
NCAC 2L, Groundwater Classifications and Standards. The Compliance Boundary for the
disposal system individually permitted on or after December 31, 1983 is established at either (1)
250 feet from the waste disposal area, or 50 feet within the property boundary, whichever is closer
to the waste disposal area. An exceedance of Groundwater Quality Standards at or beyond the
Compliance Boundary is subject to remediation action according to 15A NCAC 2L .0106(d)(2).
2. The REVIEW BOUNDARY is established around the surface disposal unit midway between the
Compliance Boundary and the perimeter of the surface disposal unit. Any exceedance of
Groundwater Quality Standards at the Review Boundary shall require action in accordance with
15A NCAC 2L .0106 (d)(1).
Any groundwater quality monitoring, as deemed necessary by the Division, shall be provided.
V. INSPECTIONS
The Permittee or his designee shall inspect the residuals storage, transport, and disposal facilities
to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors and discharges which may cause or lead
to the release of wastes to the environment, a threat to human health, or a nuisance. The Permittee
shall maintain an inspection log or summary including at least the date and time of inspection,
observations made, and any maintenance, repairs, or corrective actions taken by the Permittee.
This log of inspections shall be maintained by the Permittee for a period of five years from the
date of the inspection and shall be made available to the Division or other permitting authority,
upon request.
2. Any duly authorized officer, employee, or representative of the Division may, upon presentation
of credentials, enter and inspect any property, premises or place on or related to the surface
disposal site or facility at any reasonable time for the purpose of determining compliance with this
permit; may inspect or copy any records that must be kept under the terms and conditions of this
permit; and may obtain samples of groundwater, surface water, or leachate.
VI. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A set of all plans and specifications approved by the Division, as well as any as -built plans for the
residuals conveyance facilities and surface disposal unit shall be retained by the Permittee for the
life of the facilities/unit.
.2.. This permit shall become voidable unless the surface disposal activities are carried out in
accordance with the conditions of this permit, the supporting materials, and in the manner
approved by this Division.
3. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes described in the
application and other supporting data.
4. This permit is not automatically transferable. In the event that there is a desire for the, facilities to
change ownership or a name change of the Permittee, a formal permit request must be submitted
to the Division accompanied by an application fee, documentation from the parties involved, and
other supporting materials as may be appropriate. The approval of this request will be considered
on its merits and may or may not be approved.
Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the
Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division in accordance with North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.

6. The annual administering and compliance fee must be paid by the Permittee within thirty (30)
days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee accordingly may cause the Division
to initiate action to revoke this permit as specified by 15 NCAC 2H .0205 (c)(4).
7. The issuance of this permit does not exempt the Permittee from complying with any and ' all
statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other government agencies
(local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction, including but not limited to applicable river
buffer rules in 15A NCAC 2B.0200, erosion and sedimentation control requirements in 15A
NCAC Chapter 4 and under the Division's General Permit NCGO10000, and any requirements
pertaining to wetlands under 15A NCAC 2B .0200 and 2H .0500.
8. The Permittee, at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of this permit, shall request its
extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Commission will review the adequacy of the facilities
described therein, and if warranted, will extend the permit for such period of time and under such
conditions and limitations as it may deem appropriate.
9. This permit may be modified, or revoked and/or reissued to incorporate any conditions, limitations
and monitoring requirements the Division deems necessary in order to adequately protect the
environment and public health adequately.
10. The Division shall. be notified in writing at least 180 days prior to closing of the surface disposal
unit. A formal closure plan and a post -closure management care program for the surface disposal
unit shall be submitted at that time. This information shall be specific to the surface disposal unit
as well as relate to the Permittee's future plans for the land. A schedule for.implementing both the
closure plan and the post -closure management care program shall be provided as well.
Permit issued this the 28`h day of December 2006
NORTH �CkOLINA E IRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
�f
.f
—/-A1an W. Klimek, P.E.; Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit Number WQ0016338

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES FOR GLOBAL LEADERS
i
J U N - 4 2007
NC DENR PRO
DWQ - Aquifer Protection
June 1, 2007
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Aquifer Protection Section
610 East Center Avenue
Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Attention: Mr. Andrew H. Pitner, P.G.
Regional Environmental Supervisor
Subject: Response to May 18, 2007 Overdue Notice
Alchem, Inc.
8135 Red Road
Rockwell, NC
Delta Project No. 5EO702101 P
Dear Mr. Pitner:
Enclosed, on behalf of our client, Alchem, Inc., please find the information
requested in your May 18, 2007 letter to Mr. Randall Andrews of Alchem, Inc.
Recommendations and evaluation of compaction options for constructabiity on
the residuals fill area are described in the enclosed letter report prepared for
Alchem by S&ME. Additionally, the enclosed modified timeline has added
schedule for liner repair of the lagoons if needed after cleanout and inspection
D E LTA as requested by Ms. Ellen Huffman of your office.
Also for your information, work is nearing completion on the redesign of the
runoff retention berm at the facility. These design documents will be forwarded
to your office upon completion.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (704)
543-3910, or Mr. Andrews at [phone].
Sincerely,
DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gary C. Ribblett, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Randall Andrews - Alchem
enclosures
YInogenm_,A,,..
5910 Rice Creek Parkway Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55126 USA
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

'=
May 31, 2007
A Ichem Incorporated
8135 Red Road
Rockwell, North Carolina
Attention: Mr. Randall Andrews
Reference: SUMMARY OF FIELD-TESTING SERVICES
Alchem - Proposed Storage Tanks
Rockwell, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1359-07-040
Dear Mr_ Andrews:
S&ME, Inc. is continuing to provide construction materials testing services on an on -call basis at the
above referenced project. Our services were performed in accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 1359-
17851-07 dated March 19, 2007 and S&ME Agreement for Services (.Form AS-041). This report
summarizes the field testing services performed between May 1, 2007 and May 16, 2007.
Between May 1, 2007 and May 16, 2007 an engineering technician from our office performed four (4)
field density tests (Tests 1 through 4) on the fill material in the area of the proposed storage tanks. The
tests and retest indicated densities equaling or exceeding 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry
density. One (1) standard Proctor Test (ASTM D-698) was performed in our laboratory to establish the
moisture -density relationships of the fill soils for comparison with our field density tests. Test results are
only representative of the depth and location indicated. S& ME was not requested to be onsite for f dl time
testing and several feet of material was placed with out monitoring. The results of the field density tests
along with the laboratory Standard Proctor Test are enclosed for your review.
These field density tests represent the compaction of the designated location and elevation and may not be
representative of the compaction of the overall fill mass. Typically, the compacted density is dependent
upon lift thickness, soil moisture content, compactive effort, and soil type. If these factors remain
constant, then the tests should be representative of the overall compaction.
phis report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted construction material testing practice
for specific application to this project. If changes or deviations from the observations or conditions noted
in this report occur after the date of this report, this report will not be considered valid unless these
changes are reviewed and our report modified or verified in writing. The conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable standards of practice in this
geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
S&ME, INC. / 385 Timber Road, Suite 104 / Mooresville, NC 281 I5-7899 /p 704.662-8625 i 704.662.8735 / www.smeinc.com

Summary of Field -Testing Services S&ME Project No. 1359-07-040
Alchem — Proposed Storage Tanks May 31, 2007
ti r S&ME, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide testing services. If you have any questions concerning
these results, please contact our office.
Very truly yours,
S&ME, INC.
�e). k/ Lp�l
Richard J Bichsel
Staff Professional
Senior Reviewed By: Brad McLester, P.E.
Senior Engineer
TIE ►� Go
Copies Submitted: 2
Christop r rown, P.E.
Moores ill fftce Manger
Enclosures:
"Summary of Density Test Results" sheet
"Standard Proctor Test" sheet
2

r
Summary of Density Test Results
Project Name: Alchem, Inc,
Client; Alchem, Inc., 8135 Red Road, Rockwell, NC 28138
r'
Page No, 1
Report Date: May 31, 2007 . -
Project No.: 1359-07-040
Test
No. Date
In -Place Density Test
Dry Moisture
Type Density Content
Check Plug Data
Dry Moisture
Density Content
Reference Standard
Optimum
Ref. Moisture
Type Curve MDD Content
Compaction
Percent Percent
Specified In -Place
Location
Elevation
or Stone
Depth
1
05/02/07
131556
61.5
53.1
55.1
1 50.0
D b96
S-1
62.1
1 55.3
95
99
5' -itst of center of pad (offset)
-15'
2
OS/OZ/07
D 2937
66.3
52.3
61.9
j 44.2
D 698
S-I
S_ l
66,4
i 68.0
48.2
47.5
95
95
100
94 *
-
Center of pad
Holding tank pod
15
-7'
3
05/16/07
D 2937
63.7—
47.8
59.5
40 8
D 698
4
T 05/16/07
D 2937
_
68.2
i
—
46.3
D 698
S-1
68.0
47.5
95
100
i
i
RETEST #3
_T
- = rauea opectnca Uompaction, 1* = railed 5pccitied Moisture Content
Notes:
All Test Locations and Elevations are Approximate
References: ASTM D 1556: Density and Unit Weight of Soil In Place by the Sand Cone Method, ASTM D 698: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort, ASTM D 2937; Density of
Soil In Place by the Drive Cylinder Method
Distribution: Randall Andrews/Alchem, Inc.
Chris Brown/S & ME, Inc, Staff Professional
Name (Technical Responsibility) 5ignaltrre Position
S&ME, Inc. 385 Timber Rood, Suite 104, Mooresville, NC 28115 [phone] Fax [phone]

Laboratory Report Version 4.2
Moisture - Density Deport
B . S&ME Project #: 1359-07-040 Report Date: May 17, 2007
Project Name: Alchem Inc. Test Date(s): 5/11-17/07
Client Name: Alchem Inc.
Client Address: Rockwell, NC
Boring #: Sample #: S-1 Sample Date: May 1, 2007
Location: Offset: Depth:
Sample Description: White tan silty sand
Maximum Dry Density 62.1 PCF. Optimum Moisture Content 55.3 %
75.0
70.0
E165.0
c
Q
Q 60.0
55.0
ASTM D 698 Method A
Moisture -Density Relations of Soil and Soil -Aggregate Mixtures
MEN
ME
50.0 -�
45.0
Moisture -Density Curve
50.0 55.0 60.0
Moisture Content (%)
played: Fine Fraction 0
65.0 70.0
Soil Properties
Natural Moisture
Content:
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plastic Index:
Specific Gravity:
% Passing
3/4"
1 /2"
3/8"
#4
Oversize Fraction
Bulk Sp. Gravity
% Moisture
Oversize Fraction
MDD
Out Me
Corrected for Oversize Fraction
Sieve Size used to separate the Oversize Fraction: 44 Sieve 0 3/8 inch Sieve ❑ 3/4 inch Sieve ❑
Mechanical Hammer 0 Manual Hammer ❑ Moist Preparation ❑ Dry Preparation 1XI
References: ASTM D 698: Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
Soil Description is based on a visual classification.
Technical Responsibility: Chris Brown
Si =Ore
11 P_X RTT VAT/ nnev C�___aL ___ T___ ink_--t i^•i-__- _ _ ��r. wnnrr-�

REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
& EARTHEN EMBANKMENT ANALYSIS
8135 RED ROAD
ROCKWELL, NORTH CAROLINA
p EC E0WE
Prepared for: I MAR — 1 2.i?;'6
Mr. Randall Andrews
Alchem Inc.
Rockwell, NC
consulting
�Lpngfneers
4340-H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
CE Project 05-133
\ctober'2
C DENR rARO
-Aquifer Protection

POYLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLLC
Development and Construction Project Services l�'+
October 24, 2005
Mr. Randall Andrews
Alchem Inc.
8135 Red Road
Rockwell, NC 28138
40 T a kart —Creek Rd.. Ste. H
Charlotte, NC 28208
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad
8135 Red Road
BCE Project No. 05-133
Dear Mr. Andrews:
As authorized by acceptance of our proposal 05-133, dated July 15, 2005, Boyle Consulting Engineers,
PLLC (BCE) has recently performed a,Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earth Embankment
Analysis of the referenced property in Rockwell, North Carolina. This report describes the work
performed, presents the data obtained,, and provides our recommendations relative to site preparation and
building foundations. This report:_is intended foi^_t_the use of�Mr- Randala-Andrews/�Alchem. Inc.` Tlie _ =,d
contents_of this-repo'rtshould not be relied_upon-by-any-other-entity-without-the-express written consent off
--BCE: �__ _ __ �____� --- —
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services on this project. Please contact us
should you have any questions pertaining to this report.
Sincerely,
BOYLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLLC
a� L
Nathan B. Cooke, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Registered, NC 1051
Attachments
\-CCharl .Boyle, P.E.
Managing Principal
Registered, NC 19681
�••••0�� H CARD��
•.....•
0 0: r
SE �•
AL •
'"'Ili 111110

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................1
PROJECTOVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................................4
PROJECTINFORMATION............................................................................................................................................. 4
SCOPEOF WORK........................................................................................................................................................5
PURPOSEOF EXPLORATION........................................................................................................................................ 6
FIELD EXPLORATION, LABORATORY TESTING AND MAP RECORDS SEARCH.................................7
SOILTEST BORINGS...................................................................................................................................................7
BULKSAMPLING........................................................................................................................................................7
LABORATORYTESTING..............................................................................................................................................
8
Visual/Manual Soil Classification........................................................................................................................ 8
NaturalMoisture Content..................................................................................................................................... 8
GrainSize Distribution......................................................................................................................................... 8
SoilPlasticity ........................................................................................................................................................9
LaboratoryCompaction Testing........................................................................................................................... 9
MAPRECORDS SEARCH...........................................................................................................................................10
SITERECONNAISSANCE...........................................................................................................................................10
RESULTS OF FIELD EXPLORATION, LABORATORY TESTING AND MAP RECORDS SEARCH ......
11.
REGIONALGEOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................11
SOILSURVEY...........................................................................................................................................................11
SOILCONDITIONS....................................................................................................................................................11
GROUNDWATERCONDITIONS..................................................................................................................................13
ANALYSISAND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................14
SITEDEVELOPMENT PRECAUTIONS.........................................................................................................................14
ExistingUndocumented Fills..............................................................................................................................14
HighPlasticity Clay............................................................................................................................................15
Ground -Water Control.......................................................................................................................................15
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................16
Recommended Allowable Bearing Pressure.......................................................................................................17
PAVEMENT AND FLOOR SLAB RECOMA1ENDATIONS.................................................................................................
18
GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BERM..................................................................................................19
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING (BERM).............................................................................................................20
General Site Preparation Notes .................... :.....................................................................................................
21
LIMITATIONSOF ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................22
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................................23
REVIEWOF GRADING PLANS...................................................................................................................................23
STANDARDOF CARE................................................................................................................................................
23
APPENDICES

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Subject Site is located at the intersection of Red Road and Crescent Road in Rockwell, Rowan
County, North Carolina. The elongate parcel is comprised of approximately 33.7 acres of land. The
Subject Site is gently rolling terrain bisected by a drainage feature which trends towards the southeast.
An earthen embankment has been constructed inside the northern and eastern site boundaries and some
ponded surface water was observed at the lower site elevations along the berm interior. Approximately
20 ft of fill (reportedly comprised of residual silica mixed with on -site soils) is present north of the
residual silica lagoons and west of the containment berm. .11
We understand that long-term development plans include raising the site grade within the area defined by
the existing berm with the mixed residual silica and on -site soils to prepare a level building pad for a tank
farm and dry bulk materials storage. Gravel parking/drive areas will surround the proposed structures.
The anticipated construction will likely consist of various single -story steel -frame buildings with metal
veneer. The floor systems will likely be slab -on -grade floors for the office and materials
storage/containment areas.
�Aln a letter from Mr. David Goodrich, Hydrogeologist with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(N"� C�+WD��da ed Jun`e. �,,, 20;O:S�A`lchem+�Inc�(�' � rCHIC'P✓%l�was�recluested+ to pro, u;d �ITCD�W' (2:wh'F
i k > >
Ong+itie"�e�u,g-documentation of�tle�Fo1'lowtng�-iterns�i2:r review:cif-�a non.-haa°e�pe mid,:+!_
" 1. A structural evaluation of the residual silica from bauxite digestion (residual silica) or fills
comprised of on -site soils mixed with the residual silica,
2. Density (Standard Proctor), optimum moisture content and selected other physical properties
pertinent to the geotechnical stability of the foundation soils.
This report addresses items 1 (structural evaluation of the residual silica soils) and 2 (various pertinent
physical properties identified by our laboratory).
During an on -site meeting with our Mr. Nathan Cooke, P.G. and Mr. Andrews, the analysis of the existing
containment berm and the future configuration of the raised berm were discussed.
A total of 10 soil_test borings were performed during the field exploration. The borings were generally
located either in the earthen berm or in the fill pad areas and typically encountered varying thicknesses of
fill soils overlying stiff to dense non -plastic residual soils. Soft, wet alluvial soils were encountered at the
1

,I
Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005 '
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
lower elevations of the drainage feature. Groundwater was encountered at depths of between 2 and 17.7
ft below existing grade. , '�— -- - -- _ - - __-_ - - -- - -- - _
The existing fills in the area of the proposed building appear to have been placed in a db Mrcon�tre� 1,led
anrier" V—eM (m'g' nkza sne of unco d (�so'_9 fi 'l The most conservative site repair would be the undercut
�, s�---T-.- -� T
and replacement of the existing fill with engineered fill. In�ou opuion; �tfiis,would be, an o�!erly cconservative:4
approach on this site given the type of planned structures. An alternative to complete fill undercutting would
be to partially undercut the existing fill and any deleterious soils to Ip'roytd-i,°at east - of new ; elil
cof =mpac ed.en ineere i ill t sepafate: tlle.bui din undations-afd-sslab-bosom ron an,3�AfWl left-" pla' c
The fill thickness would be measured from the footing bearing elevation and compacted in thin lifts to 95
percent of Standard Proctor. Placement of one or more feet of bridging fill or use of geotextile fabric or
geogrid might be required on the undercut fill soils to provide a working platform. If organic debris or
organic fill is encountered, deeper undercutting would be required. Bridging fill would not be included in
the required 5 ft of engineered fill below foundations.
This partial undercutting of the existing soils would mean some risk of long term settlement due to settlement
of any left -in -place uncompacted fill material. The Owner should recognize the risk of potential future
settlement of this approach which could require future repair or maintenance. The potential for differential..
-_settlement for the buildings would be the most concern. Differential settlement concern could be minimized
by use of a postAensioned slab system or by a heavily reinforced monolithic slab of appropriate thickness to
allow the building to settle more uniformly. Flexible connections for piping coming into the building would
be desirable to help accommodate future settlement potential. We recommend use of a maximum soil
bearing pressure of 2000 psf be used for foundations bearing on the engineered fill replaced in the above
partial undercut option. The use of wood frame construction would be desirable to minimize the effects of
settlements. If masonry walls are used, liberal construction joints in the walls should be used.
In areas along, the western edge of the site where the existing fill is likely to be thin or absent, the firm
(N=12 blows per foot) or better residual soils are likely suitable to support a system of conventional
shallow foundations for the proposed building and pavement subgrade if they are similar to the residual
soils encountered at depth by the borings.
Analysis of reinforced earth slopes was performed in order to determine feasibility of the construction of
an earthen embankment which structurally retains the residual silica. This analysis is not intended to
replace design documents necessary to satisfy various environmental regulatory requirements. Our
►)

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
analysis of the existing embankment discovered that the existing embankment fill conditions are too
variable and; are unsuitable to retain any additional lateral loads without risk of global stability failure and
subsequent breach. Further analysis reveals that a re -built reinforced earth embankment using geo-grids
can replace the existing embankment and retain the residual silica waste with a reasonable and acceptable
factor of safety.
In ge eral,,the site—geotechnical�onditions�anc rsoi�lmaterials willl require ig'`ttitf cant r-e"pair , 'f tyh
planned building pad before construction as described in this report can proceed. tea pair wrlh-al's-Q b
c_ dre iffUd=toxe affimn�tnroerl justall the reinforced7e—Efh emba __ en -1

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PROJECT INFORMATION
The following project information was obtained from a verbal Request for Proposal from Mr. Randall
Andrews/ Alchem Inc., as well as our online review of Rowan County GIS information.
The Subject Site (8135 Red Road) is located at the intersection of Red Road and Crescent Road in
Rockwell, Rowan County, North Carolina. The elongate parcel is comprised of approximately 33.7 acres
of land. Figure 1 in the attached Appendix presents a Site Location Plan indicating the approximate site
and vicinity. Figure 2 in the attached Appendix presents a Boring Location Plan indicating the general
site conditions. .
The U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute topographic map depicts the Subject Property to the east of a local topographic
high. The Subject Site is gently rolling terrain and bisected by a drainage feature which trends towards
the southeast. The total vertical relief across the area of the proposed construction is estimated to be
approximately 20 to 25 feet (approximately elevation 780 to 800) feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD). 'An earthen embankment has been constructed inside the northern and eastern site boundaries
and some ponded surface water was observed at the lower site elevations along the berm interior.
Approximately 20 ft of fill (Freportedly-omprised..of`residual-_s lica_mixed--with-_on=site soils)iis present
north of the residual silica lagoons and west of the existing containment berm.
We understand that development plans include extending the fill area with the mixed residual silica and
on -site soils to prepare a level building pad for a tank farm and dry bulk materials storage. Gravel
parking/drive areas will surround the proposed structures. The anticipated construction will likely consist
of single -story steel -frame building with metal veneer. The floor systems will likely be slab -on -grade
floors for the office and materials storage/containment areas.
0

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration &Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
- Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
In a letter from Mr. David Goodrich, Hydrogeologist with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) dated June 8, 2005, Alchem, Inc. (ALCHEM) was requested to provide NCDWQ with
engineering documentation of the following items for review of a non -discharge permit:
1. A structural evaluation of the residual silica from bauxite digestion (residual silica) or fills
comprised of on -site soils mixed with the residual silica,
2. Density (standard Proctor), optimum moisture content and selected other physical properties
pertinent to the geotechnical stability of the foundation soils.
During an on -site meeting with our Mr. Nathan Cooke, P.G. and Mr. Andrews, the analysis of the existing
containment berm and the future configuration of the raised berm were discussed. We understand that
there was an overtopping of a smaller pre-existing berm in the past and that plans are to raise the current
berm as new residual silica is mixed with on -site soils to prepare a building pad for a plant expansion
project. We also understand that the environmental requirements do not allow water which contacts the
residual silica to leave the containment area.
BCE has been requested to address the two items listed above as well as analyzing the existing and future
berm configuration. Other items requested by NCDWQ are being addressed by ALCHEM separately.
The above project information is based on the furnished site sketch plan, USGS topographic information,
the referenced letter addressed to ALCHEM from NCDWQ, dated June 8, 2005 and our on -site meeting
with Mr. Andrews on June 30, 2005.
SCOPE OF WORK
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of 10 soil test
borings, laboratory testing and manual/visual examination of representative soil samples, and an
engineering analysis of the results with respect to the outlined project information. Analysis of a
conceptual retained earth slope was included in the scope of work.
5

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final `
BCE Project 05-133
PURPOSE OF EXPLORATION
The purpose of this exploration was to explore the soil and groundwater conditions at the site and to
develop engineering recommendations to guide BCE in the analysis of the reinforced earth slopes and
develop building foundation recommendations. We accomplished these objectives by the following:
1. drilling soil test borings to explore the subsurface soil conditions and collect samples for
laboratory testing, examination and classification,
2. measuring stabilized groundwater depths after the borings are completed to document the site
groundwater conditions,
3. performing an engineering/geological site reconnaissance to observe the site conditions and
detect issues that may not have been detected by the borings, observed by the engineering
technicians or indicated by published information,
4. performing a map records search of readily available geologic, topographic and soils
information
5. performing laboratory testing and visual/manual examination of soil samples from the
borings to evaluate pertinent engineering properties, and
6. analyzing the field data to develop appropriate engineering recommendations and estimate
soil parameters for use by your civil and/ or structural engineering team.
6

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
FIELD EXPLORATION, LABORATORY TESTING AND MAP RECORDS SEARCH
Details of the procedures used for the field exploration, laboratory testing and map records search are
presented in Appendix E of this report. Additional background regarding theresults of the field
exploration, laboratory/examination testing and map records search are presented in Appendix C of this
report. Site specific details regarding these procedures follow.
SOIL TEST BORINGS
BCE advanced 10 soil test borings at the site locations shown on the , attached Boring Location Plan
(Appendix A, Figure 2). The soil test borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 20 feet below
existing grade. The boring locations were selected by BCE and established in the field by BCE personnel
from map -scaled distances, by measuring from site landmarks and estimating right angles. Surveying
equipment was not used to locate the borings in the field; therefore, the locations depicted on the Boring
Location Plan should be considered approximate. Elevations shown on the profiles and Test Boring
Records are estimated based on interpolation between ground surface contours shown on the partial
topographic site plan furnished by Mid -Atlantic Associates. Representative portions of the soil samples
obtained were classified and tested in our laboratory. Soil Test Boring Records are attached (Appendix
B), showing the soil descriptions, penetration resistances, and other subgrade characteristics.
BULK SAMPLING
Bulk samples were obtained at selected locations of soil materials designated as native or borrow soils,
residual silica (non -blended) and a mixture of residual silica and native soils (blended). These bulk samples,
along with sealed samples of each material, were transported to the laboratory for testing. The locations of
these samples are indicated on the boring location plan. The native soils were excavated with construction
equipment provided by Alchem from the lower elevations of the proposed fill area. The non -blended soils
(unmixed residual silica) were obtained by direct shovel excavation of a recently placed (dump truck) load of
lagoon waste silica. The blended soils were excavated with a shovel by visually identifying mixed zones in
the eroded sidewalls of the existing fill. The blended soils are readily visually identified as a white -colored
residual silica matrix with clots of orange clayey silt.
7

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples were selected and tested in our laboratory to check field classifications and to
determine pertinent engineering properties. The laboratory testing program included visual
classifications, moisture content, grain size, soil plasticity, and compaction tests.
Visual/Manual Soil Classification
An experienced soil engineer or professional geologist classified each soil sample on the basis of texture
and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The group symbols for each soil
type are indicated in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. A brief explanation of
the Unified System is included with this report. The soil engineer grouped the various soil types into the
major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between
earth materials on the boring logs and profiles are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.
Natural Moisture Content
The natural moisture content of selected samples was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The
moisture content of the soil is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the weight of water in a given mass
of soil to the weight of the soil particles. The results are presented in Table 1, Laboratory Test Results
found in the Appendix. The moisture contents of the non -blended materials are within 3 percent of the
optimum moisture content. Moisture conditioning of existing soils should be minimal. The moisture
content of the blended soils was 8 percent dry of optimum moisture content. These blended soils would
require significant moisture conditioning.
Grain Size Distribution
Grain size tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine the particle size distribution
of these materials. After initial drying, the samples were washed over a U.S. standard No. 200 sieve to
remove the fines (particles finer than a No. 200 mesh sieve). This test was performed in a manner similar
to that described by ASTM D 422. The results are presented as percent fines on the attached Laboratory
Test Results, Table 1.
8

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Soil Plasticity
l
Representative samples of the site soils were selected for Atterberg Limits testing to determine their soil
plasticity characteristics. The soil's Plasticity Index (PI) is representative of this characteristic and is
bracketed by the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). These characteristics are determined in
accordance with ASTM D 4318. The LL is the moisture content at which the soil will flow as a heavy
viscous fluid. The PL is the moisture content at which the soil begins to lose its plasticity. The data
obtained are presented on the attached Laboratory Test Results, Table 1 in the Appendix.
Certain soils swell and shrink (change volume) with changes in soil moisture content. The PI is related to
this potential volume change ability. When excessive volume changes occur in soils confined beneath
foundations, floor slabs and pavements, structural deformations or pavement subgrade weakening can
occur. Experience has shown that soils having a PI of less than 15 are only slightly susceptible to volume
changes. Soils having a PI greater than 30 are generally susceptible to these volume changes. Soils with
a PI between these limits have moderate volume change potential. Table 2 on the following page
summarizes the general relationship between PI and soil volume change potential. The site soils tested at
this site are non -plastic and therefore not susceptible to volume change with moisture content change.
TABLE 2, POTENTIAL SOIL VOLUME CHANGE POTENTML
ANT) PT.A.CTT('TTV RF.T.ATTnN.4HTP
VOLUME CHANGE
POTENTIAL
SHRINKAGE LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
Low
15+
0-18
Moderate
10-15
15-28
High
7-12
25-41
Very High
0-11
35+
Adapted From Bowles (1996)
Laboratory Compaction Testing
Representative samples of the existing site soils from the project site were collected and returned to the
laboratory for compaction testing. A Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698) was performed on
the selected sample to determine the compaction characteristics, including the maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content. The results are presented in the Moisture Density Relationship curves and on
Table 1 found in the Appendix and discussed on the following page.
0

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
TABLE 3
UOUTIIRF DFArSITY RF.LAT10AWHIPS
Sample
Maximum Dry
Optimum
Designation
Density, (pcfi
Moisture
Content, Percent
Silica
58.5
51.3
Silica Blend
63.0
56.3
Residuum
102.8
19.5
MAP RECORDS SEARCH
The following map records were utilized to evaluate site groundwater and soil conditions.
Rockwell, North Carolina 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle, dated 1993,
published by the US Geological Survey (see Appendix A, Figure 1).
Geologic Map of the Charlotte Px 2° Quadrangle, North Carolina and South
Carolina, dated 1988, published by the USGS.
On-line Soil Survey of Rowan County, provided by the Rowan County GIS Service.
SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A site reconnaissance was performed by our Mr. Nathan Cooke, P.G., concurrently with performing the
boring layout. The surface soils were obvious fills excavated from the residual silica lagoons and
occasionally contained scattered construction debris and clayey zones. Evidence of mixing of the residual
soils with the residual silica was observed. The berm appears to have been constructed by excavating a
trench and placing the excavated materials into the berm. Ground water was present several feet below
the natural ground surface. No springs, rock outcrops, or other geologic features were observed during
the reconnaissance. No other unusual items were observed during our reconnaissance.
10

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
RESULTS OF FIELD EXPLORATION, LABORATORY TESTING AND MAP
RECORDS SEARCH
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The site is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The bedrock
underlying the site is reported to be Salisbury granite, a relatively large intrusion of light-colored igneous
rock which has become weakly metamorphosed into a type of granite gneiss. Additional details of
regional geology relative to the site area are presented in Appendix C.
SOIL SURVEY
The Soil Survey of Rowan County (from Rowan County GIS) indicates that the Helena and Cecil soil
series are present at the site. Cecil soils are typically preferred by local contractors due to their relatively
ease of workability except during wet weather. Helena soils are associated with highly plastic clay
deposits and are generally contain excessive amounts of clayey materials unsuitable for direct support of
foundations and pavements. Additional details of soil series relative to the site area are presented in
Appendix C.
SOIL CONDITIONS
All borings (except for boring B-10) encountered fill materials to depths ranging between 9 and 20+ ft
below existing grade. The berm fills typically consisted of sandy silty clay or sandy clayey silt with
standard penetration resistances ranging between 2 and 37 bpi (blows per 1.75-inch increment). Tea .U___
rn the be enrm bo mr B-_4_coil a ped bould°ers-which caused-.auger--relirsal on s-ey ral offsets. Much of
the berm fill at borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 was judged to be moderately to highly plastic, based on our
manual and visual examination. These plastic clays are known locally as "bull's tallow". Much of the fill
was wet or moist and sometimes contained organic matter. The deeper fill at boring B-5 appears as if
alluvial soils were excavated and used as fill resulting in a sampled material that has many of the
properties of both alluvium and fill. This material was designated as "Fill or Alluvium" on the Test
Boring Record and was classified as wet, sandy clayey silt with abundant organics.
11

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Borings B-6 thru B-9 were drilled in the higher site elevations and encountered fill materials to depths
ranging between 9 and 20+ ft below existing grade. Depth of fill increased eastward across the proposed
building pad area. The building pad fills typically consisted of white -tan silty sand (the residual silica)
with sandy silty clay or sandy clayey silt inclusions (the native soils) and having standard penetration
resistances ranging between 2 and 37 bpi (blows per 1.75-inch increment). The fill at boring B-6
contained rock fragments and organics. Occasional zones encountered clay soils that were judged to be
moderately to highly plastic, based on our manual and visual examination. The borings did not encounter
deleterious materials however some debris was observed embedded in the fill matrix in larger ravines
sego edxii� e exisGin il_i13ased on tl grounds.surface°co tours'the fi:l'1ashoulelnot e ceed,about:2-�
or 3"ft at_ b_ oar ng%B=6_yet greater than' 02ft of-fill:materials-were: encountered.
Alluvial (water -deposited) soils were encountered beneath the fill at boring B-5 to a depth of 20+ ft below
the surface and from beneath topsoil at boring B-10. The alluvium consisted of a wet, hard sandy clayey
silt with gravel at boring B-5 and sandy clayey silt and silty clay at B-10. Standard penetration
resistances ranged between 10 and 37 bpi. The alluvial soils typically contained minor amounts of
organic matter however abundant organics were encountered at boring B-5 at a depth of about 12 ft below
existing grade.
The residual profile generally consists of stiff to hard sandy clayey silts underlain by stiff sandy silt,
although highly plastic sandy silty clays were encountered at borings B-7. Based on the predominance of
highly plastic clay fills in portions of the berm fills we suspect that much of the site is underlain by
similar highly plastic clays in undisturbed areas.
Residual material hard enough to .be designated partially weathered rock was not encountered at the
boring locations. The borings which encountered auger refusal (B-4 and B-10) were either on boulders
within fill (B-4) or hand auger refusal at B-10 in very cohesive clays which swelled when excavated
seizing the auger sidewalls.
Refusal may result from boulders, lenses, ledges or layers of relatively hard rock underlain by partially
weathered rock or residual soil; refusal may also represent the surface of relatively continuous bedrock.
Core drilling procedures are required to penetrate refusal materials and determine their character and
continuity. Core drilling was beyond the scope of this exploration.
12

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Subsurface data is presented graphically in profile in Appendix A (Figure 3). Detailed information for
each boring location is shown on the soil test boring records included in Appendix B.
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
During drilling activities groundwater was encountered at borings B-3, B-6 and B-10 at depths ranging
between 4 and 12 feet. Ground -water levels were measured again on August 19, 2005. At that time, the
ground -water levels were encountered at depths ranging between 2 and 17.7 ft below the surface. ffli ye
groundwater levelsmmnoted�witl�in�the-berm fll�s�b'or-mgs�B �I; B-4-�and;][3�5) :l�ikei�+ represent a perched--�-�
waterc�ndition. crched�wat r refe s surface 'water that has -infiltrated -the ►zpper_so l�lay_ers on y t
(:- lsee� J ome�rappeby ielatiVely imperneati`clayey so L or_roc Numerous highly plastic clay zones were
encountered by the borings within the embankment fill. Perched water is also likely at boring B-6 where
relatively deep fills were encountered. Refer to Appendix D for Recommended Construction Practices
related to control of site groundwater and surface water, if encountered.
13

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
i I
SITE DEVELOPMENT PRECAUTIONS
In general, the site conditions and soils are generally suitable for construction of the planned fill pad. The
following items are emphasized to help identify potential problems that may arise during the construction
activities.
Existing Undocumented Fills
The borings indicate that the relative consistency of the existing fill soils near the anticipated bearing
levels is relatively loose or soft which likely mdi'cates a lack of pro ep r- fion The fills have been
blended with some of the native residual soils (mostly sandy clayey silts and some silty clays) however
the rniterials : aissiintl ndiia .not r_eac1x1y:mid Some organics and small roots were observed
weathering out of the fill matrix.
The quantities`.of undoduniated I -4re unkno These fill soils (if relatively free of organics) can
likely be re -used as engineered fill beneath buildings and parking areas (after moisture adjustment, as
necessary and approval by BCE). Although these borings did not detect organics, significant amounts of
foreign materials, possible voids or soft material zones, such materials may be encountered elsewhere
within the site. The relatively variable (although relatively low) N-values recorded within the fill material
suggest that the fill did not receive a uniform level of compactive effort.
�, b Qeui�aeztted7f ll-is_typically uncontnallecLand oarries�-the-nsk: of improper compac_ t�io inclusion of
deleterious material, and concealment of unacceptable bearing conditions such as voids, basements,
excavations, wells, etc. T hers _ef�_o a in.: ottr :apimon; the_exLstng fill at the site xs_taot_suitable toile
�arect faun'datton.;sup ort4or-the- propd d_cnnstxuction,,Likewise, slabs supported by undocumented fill
could settle excessively if voids or inclusions within the old fill begin subsidence or settlement under the
weight of new fill and/or building loads. Given these subsurface conditions, we recommend two general
development options to provide adequate foundation support as detailed in the foundation
recommendations on the following page (16). These two options involve various levels of risk related to
slab and foundation support.
14

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
High Plasticity Clay
I
As indicated previously, a layer of moderate to high plasticity clay was encountered at 7 of 10 of the soil
test borings. This high plasticity clay, known locally as "bull tallow" is commonly found within the
Helena soil unit and occasionally in the Mecklenburg and Enon units as mapped by the US Soil
Conservation Service. This material has the tendency to exhibit a high shrink/swell potential and is not
suitable for direct building or pavement support (without chemical additives.) In building areas where the
proposed footings are within 5 feet of the highly plastic clay, the clay material generally must be undercut
and removed. In pavement areas and potentially beneath slabs, the material may either be undercut or
stabilized using lime or cement treatment. In addition, this material will generally not be suitable for use
as engineered fill beneath buildings but could potentially be placed in green areas or other non-structural
fill applications. We have also found that this material is sensitive to moisture conditions and is difficult
to adequately compact if the moisture content is not close to the optimum moisture content. Therefore,
the type of remediation required for development of any specific portion of the site will depend on the
actual grades, structure location and soil conditions. The recommendations presented in this report
assume the common practice of removal of the highly -plastic bull tallow soils beneath building,
foundations and pavement/ slab areas where near subgrade.
Ground -Water Control
Groundwater was not encountered within anticipated construction and excavation limits explored by the
borings within the planned fill pad area. We do not anticipate a need for ground -water control during
grading in the cut portions of the building pad or parking area. Ground water is present near the
elevations of the base of the existing embankment/berm. Groundwater control will likely be required
during construction in the embankment reconstruction areas of the site. We recommend that the
groundwater table be lowered and maintained at a depth of at least 2 ft below bearing levels and
excavation bottoms during construction. Adequate control of this groundwater could likely be
accomplished by means of numerous gravity ditches and pumping from gravel -lined, cased sumps. The
contractor should be prepared to promptly remove surface water from the general construction area by
similar methods.
15

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
BCE realizes that completely undercutting the existing fill is likely not feasible and is overly conservative.
An alternative to complete fill undercutting or use of driven pile support would be to partially undercut the
existing fill and highly plastic soils to provide at least 4 ft of new, well -compacted engineered fill (preferably
comprised of native soils) to separate the building foundations and slab bottom from any fill left in -place.
The non -blended residual silica may be used as engineered fill however long-term building performance may
not as satisfactory as the native soils. The fill thickness would be measured from the footing bearing
elevation and compacted in thin lifts to 95 percent of standard Proctor. Placement of one or more feet of
bridging fill or use of geotextile fabric such as Mirifi 50OX or 60OX (or equivalent), might be required on the
undercut fill soils to provide a working platform. If very trashy, organic fill is encountered, deeper
undercutting would be required. Bridging fill would not be included in the required 4 ft of fill below
foundations.
This partial undercutting of the existing soils would mean some risk of long term settlement due to settlement
of the left -in -place fill material. The owner should recognize the risk of potential future settlement of this
approach which could require future repair or maintenance. The potential for differential settlement for the
buildings would be of most concern. Differential settlement concern could be minimized by use of a post -
tensioned slab system or .by a heavily reinforced monolithic slab of appropriate thickness to allow the
building to settle more uniformly. Flexible connections for piping coming into the building would be
desirable to help accommodate future settlement potential. The use of wood frame construction would be
desirable to minimize the effects of settlements. If masonry walls are used, liberal construction joints in the
walls should be used.
The use of driven timber piles or reinforced mat foundations should be considered instead of the
previously recommended undercutting and replacement. Both options should be further evaluated when
construction plans are finalized. In our opinion, based on the results at borings B-1 through B-5,
individual pile capacities of 20 tons could be obtained for timber piles driven to depths ranging between
25 to about 30 ft below existing site grade.
V

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Timber piles should be pressure -treated with a minimum tip diameter of 8 inches. Pre-augering a hole 75
to 90 percent of the pile diameter through the fill and alluvium may be required for timber piles to
promote driving efficiency and to limit driving stresses.
We recommend that a pile hammer with a rated energy of 9,000 to 15,000 ft-lbs be used. Care should be
taken to avoid overdriving the piles if sudden take-up occurs on very dense soils or partially weathered
rock.
The vertical support provided by the soil in contact with the pile cap should be omitted from the capacity
calculations. We recommend a minimum center -to -center pile spacing of 3 pile diameters. This
restriction is advisable to limit surface heave, to enhance the bearing efficiency of the individual piles,
and to reduce the possibility of damaging previously installed piles. During installation of piles, it is
recommended that the piling be driven from the center of each pile group to the perimeter to help
minimize any heaving effects.
We recommend that a soil technician working under the direct supervision of the soils engineer be present
during the pile driving to assist in establishing the required total driving resistance and to log the
penetration resistances and installed pile depths.
Recommended Allowable Bearing Pressure
Foundations bearing in new engineered fill (comprised of either native soils or residual silica) compacted
to 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density and not containing excessive fibrous organic
materials, debris or other foreign materials may be designed utilizing an allowable net soil bearing
pressure of 2000 psf based on total foundation design load. To document the existing fill is compacted to
the required degree, density testing should be performed by an experienced engineering technician in the
existing fill at the foundation bearing level. If fill is found to be compacted to a lesser degree, it should
be undercut and replaced with properly compacted fill.
For a typical footing with an average bearing pressure of 2000 psf, we anticipate foundation settlement on
the order of one inch or less. Differential settlements between adjacent, similarly loaded columns
typically are assumed to be on the order of one half the total settlement, or about''/z inch.
17

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
If undercutting of existing fill is required, the foundation excavation should extend horizontally beyond
all sides of the footings for a;distance equal to one-half of the vertical undercut below the,footing bottom,
before sloping up.
In addition, an appropriate number of hand auger borings should be extended into the existing fill at
several locations to confirm quality of the fill and to check presence of possible unsuitable materials to a
depth of at least 4 ft below the foundation bearing level. If unsuitable materials or questionable quality
fill materials are encountered below the foundation bearing level, such materials should be undercut and
replaced with new engineered fill as stated in this report.
PAVEMENT AND FLOOR SLAB RECOIVII MNDATIONS
Pavements can likely be supported by the proofrolled on -site non -plastic residual soils as encountered by
borings and on properly -compacted engineered fill. Pavement design was beyond the scope of this report.
We have not been provided with specific traffic loading and frequency information for a formal pavement
design, and have not performed laboratory or field CBR tests. However, pavement subgrade conditions
should be relatively good for properly compacted new fill. Typical pavement sections used in the vicinity
for similar sites are as follows.
A pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt underlain by 6 inches of aggregate base course is typical
for the area and is recommended for pavement areas subject to automobile traffic loads. In driveways, truck
unloading and dumpster areas, we suggest an increased pavement section of 4 inches of asphalt and 8 inches
of aggregate base course to prolong pavement life where heavy truck loads may be concentrated. A concrete
pad about 6 inches thick is recommended for truck loads at a dumpster site and in areas of sharp radius
turning. The pavement surface should be sloped to promote rapid drainage of surface water. Asphalt and
aggregate base course should meet the requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Standard Specifications.
Based on the results of our exploration and our experience with the soils in the project vicinity, we
recommend rigid pavements and slabs be designed based on a modulus of subgrade reaction of between
110 and 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci), following proper subgrade preparation as discussed in the
section entitled SUBGRADE PREPARATION found in Appendix D of this report.
18

O
-•//• 51°le Road n 2322
may A ARETN, _T
0 RG:
r wti ! a o WK
y Rf 4 fo/� m O O S
N T• OM1'
a °I
y� w
P 47.9'
IA lvJ g ( a C
o
150.03' E t7 I I ` m
�o 1 0.
NOB
ISO•-3T'.20"E ) 2 0
D I 1 0
.83'
150.63'
J (A \ o.
Blended
N 0r-4r-20w ` - Z + { B-1 ! \ \ Native
Soils 5013' o CD
w B-10 Soils
B-2
ISO,BO'
Residual z 1 B-9 0
Silica
,q9 B3' �B-4
1 O
-� B-8 \ :_B-5
B-7
\ \
ID
Red B-6
Road \ o M�
- l NORTH
Ref: Partial Topographic Site Plan Provided by
Mid -Atlantic Associates, Annotated by BCE
Personnel.
Approximate Location of Soil Test Boring
Approximate Location of Existing Berm
Approximate Location of Bulk Sample
0 125 250 500
Approximate Scale, Ft.

OPO! map printed on 10/12/05 from "North Carolina.tpo" and "Untitled.tpc
80026.000' W WGS84 801125.000' W
it
0
0
a
d'
M
8
Ln
M
§ � ,�' � i(�. tl a �' ti ��Lf 1 iid3°`� � 1 6 •,, "- 1' .:idJ3
t+ y, �' i •w s. o t' l 4 F
t �y t' 'S �k �• r �,��if � t
Crescent Road - I`t
IT
y
t
1. firh IBM /i:�.° fl ;:. ,spa s^i �z• "' ic�i �t i#` # '.`. :. . T `i t '
8 4,
19
SITEIt
r
/ 1 k.
t s Ff�+R . +i
k.
o ♦ �o
�77,
t fi
Red Road;-
IN.
L it
80026.000' W WG584 U0Q:25.UUU' VV
MN TN 0 .5 i HIE
7%(' 0 1aca) FEET 0 sw WOO METERS
Printed from TOPOI @2001 National Geographic Holdups (www.topoxom)
Ref: 7.5 Minute U.S.G.S. Topographic Map,
Rockwell, N.C. Quadrangle, dated 1987.
►i
0
0
0
M
4
U)
M

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
APPENDIX
4
Appendices for Subsurface Exploration
Tables Table 1, Summary of Laboratory Test Data
Appendix A Site Location Plan
Boring Location Plan
Generalized Subsurface Profile
Analysis of Reinforced Slope — Elevation View
Appendix B Soil Test Boring Records
Unified Soil Classification
Reference Notes for Boring Logs and Profiles
Appendix C Regional Geology, Soils and Groundwater
Appendix D Recommended Construction Practices
Appendix E Laboratory Data Reports
Procedures Regarding Field Logs, Laboratory
Data Sheets and Samples
Appendix F Definitions & Terminology
Appendix G Project Personnel Resumes
25

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Fxploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted standard soil and foundation
engineering practices and makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional
advice under the terms of our agreement and included in this report. The recommendations contained
herein are made with the understanding that the contract documents between the owner and foundation or
earthwork contractor or between the owner and the general contractor and the caisson, foundation,
excavating and earthwork subcontractors, if any, shall require that the contractor certify that all work in
connection with foundations, piles, caissons, compacted fills and other elements of the foundation 'or
other support components are in place at the locations, with proper dimensions and plumb, as shown on
the plans and specifications for the project.
Further, it is understood the contract documents will specify that the contractor will, upon becoming
aware of apparent or latent subsurface conditions differing from those disclosed by the original
Geotechnical Exploration & Retained Earth Analysis work, promptly notify the owner, both verbally to
permit immediate verification of the change, and in writing, as to the nature and extent of the differing
conditions and that no claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the
plans and specifications and disclosed by the soil studies will be allowed under the contract unless the
contractor has so notified the owner both verbally and in writing, as required above, of such changed
conditions. The owner will, in turn, promptly notify this firm of the existence of such unanticipated
conditions and will authorize such further investigation as may be required to properly evaluate these
conditions.
Further, it is understood that any specific recommendations made in this report as to on -site construction
review by this firm will be authorized and funds and facilities for such review will be provided at the
times recommended if we are to be held responsible for the design recommendations.
24

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS
The native fine-grained site soils and the residual silica fills are moisture sensitive and will likely present
difficulties during proofrolling or may not be easily useable for engineered fill in the wetter seasons. If
possible, construction activities should be scheduled for the drier periods during the year.
REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS
When grading plans for the proposed project are prepared, the plans should be reviewed by BCE to assure
compliance with recommendations presented in this report. The need for additional subsurface
exploration or advice can be determined by the review.
STANDARD OF CARE
Our evaluation of the subject site has been based on our current understanding of site conditions, project
information provided to us, our observations, and data obtained from our exploration. If the project
information is incorrect or if project objectives are changed, please contact us so that our
recommendations can be. reviewed. In addition, BCE should be provided with copies of grading/erosion
control plans for review. The discovery of any site or subsurface condition during construction which
deviate from data outlined in this report should be reported to us for our re-evaluation. The assessment of
site environmental conditions or the presence of pollutants in the soil, rock and groundwater of the site
was beyond the scope of this exploration. If this report is unclear or presents conflicting
recommendations, BCE should be notified promptly.
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the exploration
previously outlined and the data collected at the points shown on the attached boring location plan. This
report does not reflect specific variations that may occur between test locations. The borings were located
where site conditions permitted and where it is believed representative conditions occur, but the full
nature and extent of variations between borings and of subsurface conditions not encountered by any
boring may not become evident until the course of construction. If significant variations become evident
at any time before or during the course of construction, it will be necessary to make a re-evaluation of the
conclusions and recommendations of this report and further exploration, observation, and/or testing may
be required.
23

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Modification of drainage entering the existing fill pad/containment area to divert surface water and
drainage water away would benefit the performance of the reinforced earth slope. This would likely
include a temporary diversion ditch located between the rail line, the waste lagoons and the fill
pad/containment area. Diversion of any underground utilities around the perimeter of the containment
area is also recommended.
BCE further recommends that a technician or staff engineer be retained during construction of the
reinforced earthen berm to monitor the construction and assist in field decisions regarding the various
aspects of reinforced earth slope installation.
LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS
Our engineering analysis of the proposed berm does not constitute an engineering design drawing or
specification for construction purposes. Our analysis and recommendations can readily be converted into
construction -ready drawings by a civil engineering/design firm. Our scope was to evaluate the feasibility
of the proposed berm and evaluate the condition/future use of the existing berm.
Our evaluation of foundation and slab support conditions assumes that no significant chemical
interactions occur during the expected lifetime of the tank farm structures. Chemical interactions may
produce unpredictable results which may change or alter the engineering properties of the foundation
materials. BCE did not encounter any data suggesting any detrimental changes that might occur with the
types of materials encountered by the borings on the site nor have we experienced any detrimental
changes on other chemical plant facilities. Rare instances are documented where chemical introduction
caused settlement of foundations due to altering of some of the natural soil components. Chemical
interaction research was beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration.
Also, BCE has not performed soil corrosivity testing to determine the reactions of concrete and iron/steel
structures with the residual silica or silica blends. The native soils are not anticipated to be more
corrosive to steel/iron or concrete than typical residual soils in the vicinity of the site. If the concrete and
iron/steel structures are set upon native soils or fills consisting of native soils then the risk of corrosion
should be mitigated.
22

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Based on our visual examination, limited laboratory classification and compaction testing and experience
with similar type soils, the on -site residual soil and existing fill is generally suitable for use as engineered
fill. We do not recommend using the waste silica product as backfill in the berm if the berm is reinforced
with geogrids (due to potential unpredictable chemical reactions as well as erodability). In general, soils
containing more than 5 percent (by weight) fibrous organic materials or having a Plasticity Index (PI)
greater than 30 (less than 15 is preferable) should not be used for fill.
General Site Preparation Notes
Natural ground is comprised of relatively permeable silt and sand overlain by relatively impermeable
clays and clayey silts. During most construction this layering becomes inverted by peeling off the upper
clays and placing them in deeper fills. This process leaves only permeable silt and sand available to
complete the fine grading. Unfortunately, water readily infiltrates this fill mass resulting in degradation
of the support capability of the fill which can lead to differential settlement and foundation distress. We
recommend that finish grading permit the placement of about 12 inches of cohesive soil (clayey silt and/
or clays) to form a relatively impermeable "cap". The capping layer minimizes infiltration of surface
water and minimizes the potential for pad degradation from water or other liquid chemicals.
The edge of the engineered fill should extend horizontally beyond the outside edge of the building
foundations at least 10 ft or a distance equivalent to the height of fill to be placed, whichever is greater,
before sloping. The outer edge of fill should be at least 5 ft beyond paved areas. We have not performed
any laboratory triaxial shear tests for slope stability calculations, but our experience suggests that
permanent cut and fill non -reinforced slopes placed on a suitable foundation should be constructed at 2:1
(horizontal to vertical) and 2.5:1, respectively, or flatter. Fill slopes should be adequately compacted.
Cut and fill slope surfaces should be protected from erosion by grassing or other means.
The use of an erosion control blanket is recommended for the establishment of vegetation on slopes. We
recommend the seeding of the slope with drought -resistant grasses such as weeping lovegrass. Weeping
lovegrass is a perennial bunchgrass with a shallow and extensive root system that is used extensively for
erosion control on low -fertility soils. Other vegetation types may be better suited to the pH of the site
soils.
21

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
The grade slabs may not be soil supported, without proper steel reinforcement. We recommend that the
floor slab be ;isolated from the foundation footingsso differential settlement of the structure will not
induce shear stresses on the floor slab.
�GLOB-°�gSTv�S�I�TYAl�1�AL� <57[��f�3MFFFEEXIS�'>cIl`dG�EI .
The existing berm was iudaed to be unsuitable to remain as
1. Highly variable 'blowcounts and material types indicating that the berm was placed in an
uncontrolled manner,
2. Boulders and roots are present which can settle or decompose and provide pathways for water
migration,
3. The fill and native soil surface preparation is undocumented and may be not be successfully
installed
We recommend that the existing berm be re -built using approved engineered fill placed in a controlled
manner and monitored by BCE personnel. We examined a variety of berm geometries and would suggest
a geogrid-reinforced earthen berm with a 1:1 slope on the interior and exterior slope faces.
We have utilized estimated shear strengths of the existing and proposed berm fill and foundation soils.
Based on our past experience with similar soils, we have estimated shear strength parameters for slope
stability analysis as shown on Figure 4.
The analysis was performed at the visually -determined maximum height section of the existing berm and
the ground surface elevations were obtained from a partial topographic site plan provided to BCE by Mid -
Atlantic Associates, P.A.
A computer program using the Modified Bishop method was used in the stability analysis. The safety
factors in the rotational analysis are defined as the ratio of resisting, moments to the driving moments
tending to produce slope failure. The minimum recommended safety factor under long-term steady-state
loading conditions for earthen berms/embankments is 1.3. Results of our final slope stability analyses are
shown on Figure 4.
Our analysis included failure surfaces that penetrated the reinforced soil zone and deeper unreinforced
areas. Use of a reinforced earth embankment maximizes the useable surface area available for materials
storage or building construction.
19

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING (BERM)
a e ea a th pry, sed new bertl] sIMMdews ered�as ar ,n a �ancea 4ts�-Ieasifileusmty
%ra, an pumping from perto rcaa l_sjffled ksum � Th.,is, should ;minimize the amount of undercutting.
required and provide a stable base to begin construction of the berm fills.
Existing topsoil, vegetation, existing fill, alluvium and water softened residual soils and surface soils
containing organic matter or other deleterious materials should be stripped from within the proposed
reinforced berm areas. After stripping and rough excavation grading, we recommend that areas to
provide support for the reinforced fill and engineered fill be carefully inspected for soft surficial soils and
proofrolled with a 25 to 35-ton, four -wheeled, rubber -tired roller, a loaded dump truck or similar
approved equipment. The proofroller should make at least four passes over each location, with the last
two passes perpendicular to the first two (where feasible). Areas which wave, rut or deflect'excessively
and continue to do so after several passes of the proofroller should be undercut to firmer soils or bridged
using geotextile fabrics and stone. The undercut areas should, be backfilled in thin lifts with suitable
engineered fill materials. The proofrolling and undercutting operations should be carefully monitored by
an experienced engineering technician working under the direct supervision of the geotechnical engineer.
The surface of compacted subgrade soils can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
environmental changes and construction activity. Deterioration can occur in the form of freezing,
formation of erosion gullies, extreme drying, and exposure for a long period of time or rutting by
construction traffic. We recommend that the surfaces of slope subgrades that have deteriorated or
softened be proofrolled, scarified and recompacted (and additional fill placed, if necessary) immediately
prior to construction of the floor slab or pavement: Additionally, excavations through the subgrade soils
(such as utility trenches) should be properly backfilled in compacted lifts. Recompaction of subgrade
surfaces and compaction of backfill should be checked with a sufficient number of density 'tests to
determine if adequate compaction is being achieved.
The fill slope, as presently envisioned, will be constructed over a relatively shallow existing slope. The
new reinforced slope should be horizontally benched at least every 2 ft in elevation to "key" the
compacted materials into the slope.
20
r,

levation. Ft.
Y
1805
1
1
1
B-1
1800
I
3
I
I
1795
4
5
1
j 90
1
14
1
1
j 85
I
20
I
/80
37
Boring Terminated
I
1
at 20.0 Ft
1
75
1
1
1
�70
.
I
Legend
I
Silty Sand (SM)
I
I
Clayey Silt (ML)
1
Silty Clay (CH)
1
®
Sandy Silt (ML)
1
B-9
i
BERM
B-2
0
Moist
Moist
Cinders
M 16 Boring Ti
Boring Terminated at 2C
at 18.5 Hand Auger Refusal
and Boring Terminated
at 8.3 Ft
iULTING ENGINEERS; PLLC
Alluvial Structron Project Servrces
t
Fill Materi Generalized Subsurface Profile
Alchem, Inc.
V Stabilized Rockwell, North Carolina
0 Ground-W BCE Project 05-133
* Estimated Blowcot
05 Drawn By: JDA Scale: Shown Figure 3
7951
I
7751

,I
grids
'M
160 180 200
thod
& Construction Project Services
Analysis of Reinforced Slope - Elevation View
Alchem, Inc.
Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE Project 05-133
Date: 10/24/05 1 Drawn By: JDA I Scale: Shown I Figure 4

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
engineers Phone: [phone]
130YLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING 1oT0.' B-1
GSE: 800.0 (Cut)/Fill: 4
FG: 804.0 FILL
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 8/5/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Giddings Rig
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMMER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows per 1.75 - Inch Increment (bpi)
0
2
4
6-
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1
10
100
Topsoil = 1 Inch
0.0
800.0
FILL - Gray Tan Fine to Medium
Sandy Clayey Silt
0.1
799.9
3
FILL - Brown and Gray Tan Fine to
Medium Sandy Silty Clay
3.0
797.0
4
FILL - Orange Brown and Gray Tan
-Fine to Medium Sandy Silty Clay
5.5
5
FILL - Orange Tan Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Silty Clay, Wet (CH)
8.0
V
792.0
14
20
''I
-1A
RESIDUUM - Hard Tan and Yellow
Brown Fine to Medium Sandy
Clayey Silt, Wet (NIL)
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft
18.0
20.0
786.0
-20.0
37
Notes:No
Groundwater
Groundwater
at 8.6
Ft
on
Encountered
8-19-05.
During
Drilling.

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
consulting
engineers Phone: [phone]
130YLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL, TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-2
GSE: 791.0 (Cut)/Fill: 13
FFE: 804.0 FILL
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 8/5/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Giddings Rig
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMMER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows Rer 1.75 - Inch Increment (bpi)
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
100
Topsoil = None
0.0
791.0
FILL - Brown Fine to Coarse Sandy
Clayey Silt, Moist
0.0
791.0
5
FILL - Yellow Gray Tan Fine to
Coarse Sandy Silty Clay, Wet
3.0
788.0
4
Driller Noted An
Organic Odor
10 Between 4.5 and
11 Ft.
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to
Coarse Sandy Clayey Silt, Wet
5.5
785.5
9
RESIDUUM - Very Stiff Yellow
Tan Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey
Silt (ML)
11.0
IF
780.0
20
I
Boring Terminated at 18.5 Ft Due to
Continuous Sidewall Collapse.
18.5
772.5
Notes:
Groundwater
No
Groundwater
at
11.1
Ft
on
Encountered
8-19-05.
During Drilling.

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
consulting Charlotte, NC 28208
engineers Phone: 704
( ) 676-0778
]BOYLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-3
GSE: 793.0 (Cut)/Fill: 11
FFE: 804.0 FILL
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 8/5/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Giddings Rig
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMMER WT./DROP: 15 Ib., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows per 1.75 - Inch Increment b i
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
zo
10
100
Topsoil = None
0.0
793.0
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Very Clayey Silt,
Moist (CL)
0.0
793.0
5
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Clayey Silt, Moist
(ML)
3.0
790.0
-
17
4
3
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to Medium
Sandy Silty Clay, Moist (CH)
8.0
785.0
RESIDUUM - Stiff Yellow Tan Fine
to Medium Sandy Clayey Silt (NIL)
13.5
779.5
Stiff Olive Tan Fine to Medium
Sandy Clayey Silt, Moist (ML)
17.0
776.0
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft
20.0
773.0
Notes:
on
Groundwater
8-19-05.
at
4.0
Ft
at Time of
Drilling
and
14.5
Ft

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
consulting
engineers
Phone: [phone]
BOYLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL. TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-4
GSE: 795.0 (Cut)/Fi11: 9
FFE: 804.0 FILL
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 8/5/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Giddings Rig
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM 5TP #399
HAMMER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows 2er 1.75 - Inch Increment b i
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1
10
100
Topsoil = None
0.0
795.0
Auger Refusal on
Boulders at 1.0 Ft
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to Coarse
Sandy Clayey Silt
0.0
795.0
6
2
Auger
Boulders
Refusal
at 5.0
on
Ft
4
FILL - Orange Tan Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
Probable Boulder at 16.5 Ft
8.0
787.0
37
Auger Refusal and Boring-
Terminated at 16.5 Ft
16.5
778.5
Notes:
Groundwater
Boring
No
is a
Groundwater.
at
Composite
10.0
Ft
on
of
Encountered
8-19-05.
4
Attempts.
During Drilling.

43407H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
consulting
... , : engineers Phone: [phone]
BOYLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-5
1 GSE: 792.0 (Cut)/Fill: 12
FFE: 804.0 FILL
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 8/5/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Giddings Rig
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMIv1ER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows 2er 1.75 - Inch Increment b i
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
100
Topsoil = 1 Inch
0.0
792.0
FILL - Olive Tan Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
0.1
791.9
5
FILL - Orange Tan and Olive Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Silt
3.0
789.0
9
FILL or ALLUVIUM - Firm Dark
Gray and Tan Brown Fine to Coarse
Sandy Clayey Silt, Wet with
Abundant Organics
8.0
784.0
ALLUVIUM - Gray Tan Fine to
Coarse Sandy Clayey Silt, Wet with
Gravel
12.0
780.0
37
,371
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft
20.0
772.0
Notes:
Groundwater
* Estimated
No Groundwater
at 9.2
Based
Ft
on
on
Drilling
Encountered
8-19-05.
Consistancy.
at
Time
of
Drilling.

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
consulting Charlotte, NC 28208
engineers Phone: [phone]
�. ( )
BOY LE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BOILING RECORD
BOILING NO.: B-6
GSE: 792.0 (Cut)/Fitl: 8
FFE: 800.0 FILL
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 8/5/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Giddings Rig
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMMER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows Eer 1.75 - Inch Increment b i
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1
10
100
Topsoil = None
0.0
792.0
Driller Noted
Rock Fragments
Drille Noted
Rock Fragments
FILL - Brown and Tan Fine to
Medium Sandy Silty Clay with Sand
Seams (CH)
0.0
792.0
FILL - Brown and Tan Fine to
Coarse Sandy Clayey Silt
3.0
789.0
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Coarse Sand with White Clayey Silt
Seams, Moist
5.5
786.5
FILL - Dark Brown Fine to Coarse
Sandy Clayey Silt, Moist with
Organics
8.0
784.0
12
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
12.0
780.0
16
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Clayey Silt with
Plastic Clay Seams and Trace
Organics
17.0
775.0
2
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft
20.0
772.0
Notes:Groundwater
and
7.5 Ft on
8-19-05.
Encountered
at 12 Ft
at Time of Drilling

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
' Charlotte, NC 28208
consulting
Q engineers
, Phone: [phone]
BOYLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-7
GSE: 802.0 (Cut)/Fill: 0
FFE: 802.0 AT GRADE
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 8/5/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Giddings Rig
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMMER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows Eer 1.75 - Inch Increment (bpi)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1
10
100
Topsoil = None
0.0
802.0
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Medium Sand with Orange Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
Inclusions
0.0
802.0
1
g
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Medium Sand
3.0
799.0
20
41(611
RESIDUUM - Very Stiff Tan Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Silty Clay,
Moist (CH)
17.0
785.0
1
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft
20.0
782.0
Notes:
Groundwater
No Groundwater
at 17.7
Ft
Encountered
on
8-19-05.
at
Time
of
Drilling.

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
consulting .
engineers Phone: [phone]
BOYLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-8
GSE: 802.0 (Cut)/Fill: 0
FFE: 802.0 AT GRADE
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 3/18/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMMIER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows Eer 1.75 - Inch Increment bpi)
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
100
Topsoil = None
0.0
802.0
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Medium Sand with Orange Brown
Fine to Medium Clayey Silt
Inclusions
0.0
802.0
1
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Medium Sand with Orange Brown
Fine to Medium Clayey Silt
Inclusions *
3.0
799.0
13
FILL - Light Green Fine Sandy Silty
Clay with Organic Bits
5.5
796.5
15
RESIDUUM - Very Stiff Orange
Tan Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey
Silt with Trace Organics
9.0
793.0
20
Stiff to Very Stiff Orange Tan Fine
to Medium Sandy Silt (NIL)
* with White Gray Tan Clay
Seams
12.0
790.0
13
20
Moist
7-
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft
20.0
782.0
Notes:
Groundwater
No Groundwater
at 13.9
Ft
Encountered
on
8-19-05.
at
Time
of
Drilling.

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
consulting
engineers Phone: [phone]
x.., ( )
130YLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BORING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-9
GSE: 800.0 (Cut)/Fill: 2
FFE: 802.0 FILL
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 3/18/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMMER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows per 1.75 - Inch Increment b i
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
100
Topsoil = None
0.0
800.0
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Medium Sand with Orange Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
Inclusions
0.0
800.0
to
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Medium Sand with Orange Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
Inclusions Moist
5.5
794.5
10
FILL - White Tan Silty Fine to
Medium Sand with Orange Brown
Fine to Medium Sandy Clayey Silt
Inclusions and Cinders
8.0
792.0
26
FILL - Orange Brown Fine to
Medium Sandy Clayey Silt with
Brown and White Sand Inclusions
12.0
788.0
37
RESIDUUM - Stiff Orange Tan
Clayey Fine to Medium Sandy Silt,
Moist (ML)
17.0
783.0
Boring Terminated at 20.0 Ft
20.0
780.0
Notes:
Groundwater
No Groundwater
at 14.9
Ft
Encountered
on
8-19-05.
at
Time
of
Drilling.

4340-H Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
consulting
11 ='P,, engineers Phone: [phone]
13CYLE Fax: [phone]
SOIL TEST
BODING RECORD
BORING NO.: B-10
GSE: 780.0 (Cut)/Fill: 0
FFE: 780.0 AT GRADE
PROJECT INFORMATION
DRILLING INFORMATION
PROJECT: Alchem, Inc.
SITE LOCATION: Rockwell, North Carolina
BCE JOB NO.: 05-133
DATE DRILLED: 3/18/2005
DRILLING CO.: Boyle Consulting Engineers, PLLC
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger
SAMPLING METHODS: ASTM STP #399
HAMNvIER WT./DROP: 15 lb., 20 in.
Description Depth Elevation Penetration - Blows er 1.75 --Inch Increment b i
0
2-
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1
10
100
Topsoil = 2 Inches
0.0
780.0
RESIDUUM - Stiff Gray Tan Fine to
Medium Sandy Very Clayey Silt,
Moist (CL)
0.2
V
779.8
13
Very Stiff Olive Gray Tan Fine to
Medium Sandy Silty Clay, Moist
(CH)
5.5
774.5
20
Hand Auger Refusal and Boring
Terminated at 8.3 Ft
8.3
771.7
Notes:Groundwater
and
2.0 Ft on
8-19-05.
Encountered
at 4.5 Ft
at Time
of
Drilling.

Atterberg Limits Determination
Project Alchem Job No. 05-133
Location of Project Rockwell, NC Boring No. - Sample No. S05108
Description of Soil Tan White Silty Fine Sand (SILICA)
Depth of Sample 0-3 Ft. Tested By Brian Sain Date 8/18/2005
Sample Preparation
Liquid Limit Determination
Can no.
Wt. of wet soil + can (0.1 g)
Wt. of dry soil + can (0.1g)
Wt. of can (0.1g)
Wt. of dry soil (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wt. of moisture (0.1g) '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water content, 't iP/o
No. of blows, N
NON -PLASTIC
Liquid limit (LL) _
Plastic limit (PL) =
Plasticity index Ip =
+Blows ; '1 Acceptable range of results
LL = 2.4
PL = 2.6
Plastic Limit Determination
Can no.
Wt. of wet soil + can (0.1 g)
Wt. of dry soil + can (0.1g)
Wt. of can (0.1g)
Wt. of dry soil (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wt. of moisture (0.1 g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water content, uP/o = uln
Notes: Report the liquid and plastic limit in whole numbers. If the liquid limit or plastic limit could not be determined
or if the plastic limit is equal to or greater than the liquid limit, report the soil as non plastic.
Sigin.-,i:ure:
AENNIER& e
kiv
AASHTO R18
ALD S05108 2/27/2006 10:47 AM

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
REGIONAL GEOLOGY, SOILS AND GROUNDWATER
Regional Geology of the Piedmont " '
Geologists subdivide the Piedmont into geologic "belts," each having a somewhat different set of
characteristics as noted below. The belts are discussed in the order in which they are geographically
located in a west to east manner.
Inner Piedmont Belt - The Inner Piedmont Belt is the most intensely deformed and metamorphosed
segment of the Piedmont. These metamorphic rocks range from 500 to 750 million years in age and
include gneiss and schist that have been intruded by younger granitic rocks. The northeast -trending
Brevard fault zone forms much of the boundary between the Blue Ridge and the Inner Piedmont belts.
Kings Mountain Belt - The belt consists of moderately deformed and metamorphosed volcanic and
sedimentary rocks. The rocks are about 400-500 million years old.
Milton Belt - This belt consists of gneisses, schist and metamorphosed intrusive rocks.
Charlotte Belt -The belt consists mostly of 300-500 million years old igneous rocks such as granite,
diorite and gabbro.
Carolina Slate Belt - This belt consists of a band of heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks
stretching from Georgia through the Carolinas into Virginia and was the site of a series of oceanic volcanic
islands about 550-650 million years ago. The rocks have been subjected to heat and pressure
(metamorphism) over geologic time since their formation. The major rock type encountered in this belt is not
slate, but includes a variety of metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks. The metavolcanics include tuffs,
rhyolitic, dacitic and andesitic flows and breccias; the metasediments include slate, mudstones, sericite schist,
and argillite. The belt is also known for its numerous abandoned gold mines and prospects.
Triassic basins - Some sites may be located in Triassic lowland, one of several trough shaped basins that
occur in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The basins are filled with sedimentary rocks that formed
about 190-200 million years ago when faulting activity caused long narrow areas to drop several thousand
feet relative to the surrounding areas. Soil and rock materials were eroded from the adjacent areas and
deposited in inland fresh water lakes within the troughs to eventually form sedimentary rocks. The
Triassic rocks consist of sandy and clayey sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and shale. Isolated calcareous
(limestone) zones exist in the fine-grained rocks, and occasional coal beds are interbedded with dark -
colored shales and siltstones. Conglomerate and fanglomerate are found along both the eastern and
western margins of the basins.
Basic igneous rocks, commonly classed as diabase, have been intruded in the form of dikes and sills into
the Triassic rocks. The great majority of these dikes tend in a northwesterly direction. The intrusives are
massive, crystalline, unmetamorphosed diabase rocks that are dark brown, dark gray, or black in color.
Outcrops of diabase are common in the form of boulders, which are produced by spheroidal weathering
along the joints in the rocks.
Raleigh belt - The Raleigh belt contains granite, gneiss and schist and is considered to be an eastern
version of the Charlotte Belt.
Eastern Slate Belt - This belt contains slightly metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks similar to
those of the Carolina slate belt. The rocks are poorly exposed and partially covered by the Coastal Plain

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
sediments. The 500-600. million years old metamorphic rocks are intruded by younger, approximately
300 million -year -old, granitic bodies.
The region has many gold mines arranged in zones within two physiographic provinces, the Piedmont and
the Blue Ridge. Most of the deposits and the most productive mines are in the Piedmont province in
Mecklenburg, Rowan, Cabarrus, and Davidson Counties of North Carolina. The first information on gold
production in the area occurred in 1799, when a 17-pound nugget was found on the Reed plantation in
Cabarrus County. This discovery and others on the Reed property stimulated interest in gold mining in
the Southeastern States, and by 1825 mining was in full swing. Prospecting was likely also performed by
farmers during the slower times of the year resulting in many shallow pits and diggings. The first
production in North Carolina was from placers and saprolite; by 1850 several important lode mines were
opened. Placer mining sometimes involved pumping water onto hillsides and washing the lighter -weight
soil tows the creek leaving the heavier gold particles. Remains of placers currently appear as long deeply
incised ravines. The lode mines were deeper and more extensive. Most mines were closed during the
Civil War, but were reactivated after the war. Depth of the prospects and mines was often limited to the
capacity of the dewatering pumps. Most mines were limited to 120 ft in depth until new pumps were
developed in the 1900's.
Soils of the Piedmont
The Piedmont Province lies between the Coastal Plain and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Piedmont
physiographic province is characterized by its particular types of landforms and occupies about 45 percent
of the area of the state. The Piedmont Province is a deeply eroded, plateau -like segment of the
Appalachian Mountain System. The Piedmont in this region is about 80 to 120 miles wide. It is bounded
on the northwest by the Blue Ridge Province and on the southeast by the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province.
The plateau generally slopes southeastward from an elevation of about 1200 ft near the Blue Ridge to
about 400 ft near the Coastal Plain. The Piedmont is also characterized by gently rolling, rounded hills
and long low ridges with up to a few hundred feet of elevation difference between the hills and valleys.
The Piedmont also includes some relatively low mountains including the South Mountain and the
Uwharrie Mountains.
The soils in the Piedmont Province consist mainly of residuum derived from the parent bedrock, which
are found in various states of weathering. Although the residual saprolitic materials normally retain the
structure of the original parent bedrock, they typically have a much lower density and exhibit strengths
and other engineering properties typical of soil. In a mature undisturbed weathering profile of the
Piedmont Province, the soils are generally found to be finer grained (or more clayey) at the surface where
more extensive weathering has occurred. This near -surface finer -grained layer is often referred to as the
upper clayey zone and is typically encountered from beneath topsoil to about 3 to 6 ft below the ground
surface. Layers of clayey soils are rarely present beyond depths greater than 6 ft and tend to exist as thin
seams, which decrease in thickness and frequency as depth increases. The particle size of the residual
soils generally becomes larger and more granular with increasing depth and gradually changes first to
partially weathered rock and finally to unweathered bedrock. The mineral composition of the parent rock
and the environment in which weathering occurs largely control the resulting soil's engineering
characteristics.
Some of the soils along the site drainage features and in the flood plain areas are water -deposited
(alluvial) materials that have been eroded and washed down from adjacent higher ground. Alluvial soils
often contain layers of rounded gravel and cobbles, interbedded with zones of soft compressible, fine
grained soils. Such alluvial soils are usually soft since they have never been consolidated by pressures in

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
excess of the existing overburden pressure. In some cases, particularly along,major rivers channels, the
alluvial soils were deposited such a long time ago that the river channel has eroded deeply into to bedrock
leaving old floodplain soils "high and dry." These soils are called Terrace Deposits or sometimes Ancient
Alluvium since they begin to reacquire some of the characteristics of residual soils.
Groundwater in the Piedmont
Groundwater is water that is found underground in the cracks and spaces in soil, sand partially weathered
rock and bedrock. Groundwater is stored in and moves through layers of soil, sand and bedrock called
aquifers. In the Piedmont, most aquifers are unconfined. Unconfined aquifers are those that are bounded
by the water table. Some aquifers, however, lie beneath layers of impermeable materials. These are called
confined aquifers, or sometimes artesian aquifers. A well in such an aquifer is called an artesian well.
The water in these wells rises higher than the top of the aquifer because of confining pressure. If the
water level rises above the ground surface a flowing artesian well occurs. The piezometric surface is the
level to which the water in an artesian aquifer will rise.
During a geotechnical exploration, the borings or test pits penetrate the overlying soil/rock strata and
sometimes reach the top of an aquifer, which corresponds to the top of groundwater often called the water
table. The process of drilling the borings or excavating test pits often disturbs the walls of the borehole or
excavation such that the water which may be present within the strata are partly prevented from
immediately filling the borehole up to the piezometric surface. These water levels are those water levels
actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated, usually as "time of boring" or "during drilling".
The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in a granular soil. In
clays and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require 24 hours up to several days
for the water level to stabilize.
Depending largely upon topographic location and proximity to drainage features, ground -water levels
may fluctuate several feet or up to 15 feet or more with typical seasonal and rainfall variations and with
changes in the water level in adjacent drainage features. Normally, the highest ground -water levels occur
in late winter and spring and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall. At the time of this
exploration water levels are probably intermediate between their seasonal extremes. Fluctuations in the
ground -water level can be expected depending on variations in precipitation, run-off, and other factors not
evident or apparent at the time of our subsurface exploration.
Sometimes water levels are recorded at elevations above the groundwater table. These water levels are
indicative of perched water conditions. Perched water is surface water that has infiltrated the upper soil
layers only to become trapped above deeper relatively impermeable soil or rock layers. Perched water is
often encountered as small pockets or depressions within fill soil layers, above clayey soils and bedrock
or partially weathered rock. The approximate quantity of perched water is not typically substantial;
however in some cases it can be significant.
The caved and dry depths noted on the soil test boring records may indicate the presence of ground water
at or just. below the indicated caved depth which likely caused the soils to collapse into the hole. They
may also be the result of soil cuttings left in the borehole upon removal of the drilling tools. We examine
the profile of caved elevations and examine the boring logs for comments regarding moistness of soils
below the caved depths to evaluate whether or not a caved depth is likely due to groundwater or the result
of soil cuttings sloughing during removal of the drilling tools.

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
If groundwater is encountered during construction, the groundwater table be lowered and maintained at a
depth of at least 2-ft below bearing levels and excavation bottoms during construction. Adequate control
of this groundwater could likely be accomplished by means of gravity ditches and pumping from gravel -
lined, cased sumps. The contractor should be prepared to promptly remove surface water and perched
water from the general construction area by similar methods. Some sites require more time or more
complex approaches to properly dewater.
Lowering the groundwater level of larger site areas will increase the effective stress within the soils
surrounding the face of the excavation. This will result in some ground surface settlement. The effect of
this settlement on surrounding streets, utilities and particularly any nearby buildings should be considered
during the planning for major dewatering systems.
Construction projects sometimes require a system consisting of underfloor drains below the building and
vertical drains behind retaining walls. Such systems should be designed to drain by gravity (if possible)
or at least drain by gravity to permanent sumps from which the water can then be pumped to outfalls to
drain by gravity. The use of granular fill (washed stone) behind the below ground walls would be more
traditional than a manufactured composite system (such as Miradrain or Enkedrain) due to the inability to
access the drain materials for maintenance should problems develop. If manufactured products are used,
they must be properly installed and must function over the life of the structure as designed.

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Subgrade Preparation
Stripping Limits-Subgrade reparation should consist of stripping of unsuitable fill materials from the
building, pavement and concrete walkway areas. Deeper undercutting may be required if wet, unsuitable
soil is encountered. Earthwork and clearing be extended a minimum of 10 ft beyond the building and
pavement limits. Stripping limits should be extended an additional 1 ft for each foot of fill required at the
building's exterior edge.
Proofrolling-After stripping to the desired grade and before fill placement, the stripped surface should be
observed by an experienced geotechnical engineer or his authorized representative. Proofrolling using a
loaded tandem axle dump truck (or alternate equipment as approved by BCE) may be used at this time to
aid in identifying localized soft or unsuitable material that should be removed. Subgrade soils that do not
proofroll successfully should be removed and replaced with engineered fill per subsequent section of this
report. A qualified technician or the project geotechnical engineer should evaluate soft or unsuitable
materials'encountered during this proofrolling, including the cultivated/disturbed soil areas. Note that the
control of surface water during clearing, grubbing, stump removal and stripping will have a significant
impact on the amount of soft soils created.
Trench Backfill - Fill and backfill of undercut zones including utility trenches should be placed in
accordance with the "Engineered Fill" section of this report.
Subgrade Maintenance
Fill Areas - Compacted subgrade soils can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
weather and construction activity. Deterioration can occur in the form of freezing, formation of erosion
gullies, excessive drying, and exposure for a long period of time or rutting by construction traffic or by
inadequate surface water control. Surfaces of floor slab and pavement subgrades that have deteriorated,
softened or degraded should be proofrolled, scarified and recompacted (and additional fill placed, if
necessary) immediately prior to construction of the floor slab or pavement. Additionally, excavations
through the subgrade soils (such as utility trenches) should be properly backfilled in compacted lifts.
Recompaction of subgrade surfaces and compaction of backfill should be checked with a sufficient
number of density tests to determine if adequate compaction is being achieved.
Cut Areas - Fine-grained soils can rebound elastically upon excavation of overlying soils. Rebound is a
function of the soil's elastic properties and the amount of effective stress reduction (overburden
removed). Elastic rebound can cause the upper 6 to 24 inches of the newly exposed soil to loosen or
soften, leading, to a reduction of subgrade support capability. Elastic expansion can be handled by
compacting the exposed cut surface with compaction equipment, similar to engineered fill. Excavated
surfaces should be proofrolled per the preceding section and repaired as appropriate. Fine-grained cut
subgrades, similar to those encountered at the borings, tend to breakdown under construction traffic. To
minimize subgrade soil breakdown, a 12 to 24 inches protective cover layer can remain in areas of
construction traffic. This protective cover can then be removed at the appropriate time.
Generally, loose or wet surficial residual soils, which do not successfully proofroll, are not suitable for direct
support of the proposed building foundations and pavement subgrades. These materials, if encountered
below the foundation bearing level, should be re -worked (dried/recompacted) or replaced with engineered
fill. Verification of the consistency of the residual soil should be performed by an experienced engineering
technician under the direction of a geotechnical engineer with an appropriate number of field penetrometer
tests beucath the footing to confirm that the material is of uniform quality. The recommended allowable soil

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005 '
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
bearing pressure is based on the assumption that the criteria in the Section entitled "Subgrade
Preparation" are met.
Field penetrometer tests should be performed on each foundation during construction to evaluate the
foundation bearing soils to a depth of one or two footing widths respectively for isolated and strip
footings. Additional penetrometer testing may be required if multiple material types are present in the
footing excavation. Undercut soils should also be inspected by an engineering technician working under
supervision of a geotechnical engineer before placement of engineered fill, if applicable.
The foundation excavation should extend horizontally beyond all sides of the footings at the undercut
level for a distance equal to the vertical undercut depth measured from the footing bottom, before sloping.
Maintenance of Foundation Bearing Surface - Environmental forces (wind, water, ice, etc.) may weaken
the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain exposed for an extended period.
Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavations are prepared. If the
bearing soils degrade from environmental forces, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation
excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If rainfall becomes imminent while the
bearing soils are exposed, a 2 to 4-inch thick "mud mat" of "lean" concrete should be placed on the
bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel. Water should not ,be permitted to stay in the
footing excavations since the water will continue to degrade the integrity of the soil matrix to ever-
increasing depths therefore increasing the amount of additional undercut required to reach undisturbed
soils.
Minimum Foundation Dimensions - In order to reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and
excessive settlement due to local shear or "punching" action, continuous footings should have a minimum
width of 1.5 ft and that isolated column footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 2.0 ft. In addition,
footings should be placed at a depth to provide adequate frost cover protection. Footings in unheated
areas should be placed at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below finished grade for protective embedment.
Estimated Settlement - Firm (N-values of 7 bpi) or better low plasticity to non -plastic residual soils can
provide adequate support for properly designed spread footing foundations from a bearing capacity
perspective. Settlement analysis should be performed where conditions vary.
Floor Slab
The grade slab may be soil supported in accordance with the recommendations in this report. The grade
slab should be jointed around columns and along footing supported walls so that the slab and foundations
can settle differentially without damage.
The stripped slab area should be observed by an experienced soil technician during the time of
construction in order to aid in locating unsuitable materials that should be removed. Where new fill
material or backfill of trenches and temporary excavations are required to reach the design floor slab
subgrade elevation, an approved engineered fill material should be used. This material should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM
Specification D-698, Standard Proctor Method. Also, the upper 18 inches of subgrade fill under floor
slabs should be compacted to 100 percent of the same specification.
Slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of granular material having a maximum
aggregate size of 1.5 inches and containing no more than 2 percent fines. This granular layer will
facilitate the fine grading of the subgrade and help prevent the rise of water through the floor slab. Prior

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
to placing the granular material, the floor subgrade soil should be properly compacted, proofrolled, and
free of standing water, mud, and frozen soil. Before the placement of concrete, a vapor barrier should be
placed on top of the granular material to provide additional moisture protection. However, special
attention should be given to the surface curing of the slab in order to minimize uneven drying of the slab
and associated cracking.
Engineered Fill
Fill used for raising site grade or for replacement of material that is undercut should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture
content, and uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density obtained in
accordance with ASTM Specification D-698, Standard Proctor Method.
Soil placed as fill should be an approved material, free of organic matter or debris (no more than 5 percent
by weight), and have a liquid limit and plasticity index less than 40 and 15, respectively. The non -plastic
to low plasticity residual soils encountered in the borings appear suitable for re -use as engineered fill
materials after approval by BCE and moisture conditioning at the time of placement.
Excavations which do not permit access to mass -grading compaction equipment should be compacted by
hand -directed mechanized compaction equipment such as Rammax, Whackers or similar hand -directed
compactors. Such excavations should be closely monitored. Isolated undercut areas should be backfilled
in thin (4 inches or less) lifts with suitable compacted fill materials.
Once compaction begins, a sufficient number of density tests should be performed by an experienced
engineering technician working under the direct supervision of the geotechnical engineer to measure the
degree of compaction being obtained. One test per material type or blend of material types used on -site is
required.
In site areas where more than about 8 feet of engineered fill will be placed to achieve proposed grades,
construction should be delayed to allow time for the underlying soils and fill to "settle out" as they adjust
to the overlying weight of materials. In the deepest fill areas, a period of 3 to 4 weeks may be required
for this adjustment. Settlement pins installed at the top of the fill and monitored with a precision level
would aid in determining when settlements are negligible and construction could begin. BCE can provide
these monitoring services, if requested.
Field Density Tests - In -place density tests shall be performed with a minimum of 1 test per 2,500 ft2 and
10,000 ftz of fill area for each lift of fill placed in building footprints and other areas, respectively. More
frequent testing is normally required for backfilling walls, trenches, etc. Moisture contents shall be
controlled by disking or other approved mechanical means to achieve the desired moisture content and
density specifications. Proper control of fill compaction is an important aspect of this project; therefore,
all fill operations should be observed by a qualified soil technician to determine if minimum compaction
requirements are being met.

consulting Moisture Content
engincers
r -
Project Name Alchem
Description of soil Tn Wh Fi Sa Si / Wh Or Fi Sa Si / Br Sa Si
1 2 3
Taggart Creek
Suite H
Charlotte, NC 28208
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
Job No. 05-133
Date 8/12/05
4
5 6
I•I
Sample ID#
S05108
S05109
S05110
Can number
p-2
p-10
p-20
Pan + Wet soil
694.54
1701.59
2267.54
Pan + Dry soil
518.11
1213.09
1969.93
Wt. of water
176.43
488.5
297.61
0
0
0
0
Pan wt.
191.26
195.53
309.67
Wt. Of dry soil
'326.85
1017.56
1660.26
0
0
0
0
% Moisture
53.98%
48.01%
17.93%
kN-'
A.
R18;
SILICA BLEND RESIDUUM
Signature
Boyle Consulting Engineers
JICS 2/27/2006 10:56 AM

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Project
Description of soil
Wash #200 Sieve Analysis
Alchem
Boyle Consulting Engineers
4340 Taggart Creek Rd Ste. H
Charlotte NC 28208
Job No. 05-133
Date 8/17/2065
BCE Sample ID#
S05108
S05109
S05110
Can number
p-4
p-3
p-5
Pan + Soil before Sieve
312.45
316.56
354.57
Pan + Soil after Sieve
292.36
263.27
269.56
Wt. Of Coarse Soil
97.73
70.31
75.26
0
0
0
0
Wt. Of Fine Soil
20.09
53.29
85.01
0
0
0
0
Pan wt.
194.63 '
192.96
194.3
% of Material Finer than
#200 Seive
17.05%
43.11 %
53.04%
% of Material Retained on
#200
82.95%
56.89%
46.96%
Silica Blended Residual
tt),
A. Ilk.,:
AASH TO. R1.8
Signature:
Boyle Consulting Engineers
Wash #200 S05108, 109,110 2/27/2006 10:56 AM

—«n9 Atterberg Limits Determination
�', engineers
BOYLE
Project Alchem Job No. 05-133
Location of Project Rockwell, NC Boring No. - Sample No. S05108
Description of Soil Tan White Silty Fine Sand (SILICA)
Depth of Sample 0-3 Ft. Tested By Brian Sain Date 8/18/2005
d Sample Preparation
j Liquid Limit Determination
Can no.
Wt. of wet soil + can (0.1 g)
0 Wt. of dry soil + can (0.1g)
a Wt. of can (0.1g)
Wt. of dry soil (0.1g) 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wt. of moisture (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
( Water content, uMo
No. of blows, N
r 100 Oglo ~' Liquid limit (LL) _
Plastic limit (PL) _
N
80 00% Plasticity index IP =
x
p 6a ooio NON -PLASTIC
—®—Blows Acceptable range of results:
�A:2000f%n LL=2.4
} PL=2.6
d 0'00%
r
10' 15 20 w r 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
d Plastic Limit Determination u
Can no.
Wt. of wet soil + can (0.1g)
Wt. of dry soil + can (0.1g)
q Wt. of can (0.1g)
d Wt. of dry soil (0.1 g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00
Wt. of moisture (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00
Q Water content, vP/o = wp
Notes: Report the liquid and plastic limit in whole numbers. If the liquid limit or plastic limit could not be determined
or if the plastic limit is equal to or greater than the liquid limit, report the soil as non plastic.
1
I
Signature: Ak
' AHTO R18
ALD S05108 2/27/2006 10:55 AM

ALD S05109 2/27/2006 10:55 AM

roR=�L�9 Atterberg Limits Determination
M s BOYLE s
Project Alchem Job No. 05-133
Location of Project Rockwell, NC Boring No. - Sample No. S05110
r Description of Soil Brown Fine Sandy Silt (RESIDUUM)
N Depth of Sample 0-3 Ft. Tested By Brian Sain Date 8/18/2005
r Sample Preparation
Liquid Limit Determination
Can no.
Wt. of wet soil + can (0.1g)
Wt. of dry soil + can (0.1g)
Wt. of can (0.1g)
Wt. of dry soil (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wt. of moisture (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water content, 'up/o
No. of blows, N
UquidL�rn�t
Liquid limit (LL)
N Plastic limit (PL) _
r 80 00% Plasticity index1p =
so oo i° NON PLASTIC
BioWs
0 Acceptable range of results:
yx
41,LL=2.4
PL = 2.6
10 15 �20 25 3�0 35 40 45 50 . S",
_ N0110f Bfows, N`
t 4
Plastic Limit Determination %
r Can no.
' Wt. of wet soil + can (0.1g)
Wt. of dry soil + can (0.1g)
Wt. of can (0.1g)
f Wt. of dry soil (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00
Wt. of moisture (0.1g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water content, 'u9/o = wp
Q
NNotes: Report the liquid and plastic limit in whole numbers. If the liquid limit or plastic limit could not be determined
d or if the plastic limit is equal to or greater than the liquid limit, report the soil as non plastic.
1
4
V
MIEN
Signature: AMV
AASHTQ R18
ALD S05110 2/27/2006 10:56 AM

^9
Proctor
Report
Boyle Consulting Engineers
��,v�,:w.�.� A•s�K
4340Taggart Creek Rd Ste H
B Y«
Charlotte, NC 28208
Project Name
Alchem
Job No. 05-133
Location of Project
Rockwell, NC
n/a Sample No. 05108
Description of Soil
White Tan
Silty Fine Sand
Soil Loc.
n-s�e
Test Performed by
Johnathan Robinette
Test Date 8/11 /2005
Blows/Layer
25
No. of Layers
3
Wt. Of Hammer 5.5
Mold Dimensions:
Diam
4
Ht.
4.625
Vol. 0.0333
Method: A - #4 Sieve
Speciment Prep:
Air -Dried
Water Content Determination
Pan #
p-4
p-8
p-1
3-Sep
p-5
Wt. of can + wet soil
733.79
854.70
987.30
898.47
831.81
Wt. of can + dry soil
565.97
638.28
705.65
636.16
581.81
t. of water
167.82
216.42
281.65
262.31
250.00
0.00
0.00
Wt. of can
195.03
192.67
192.23
192.91
194.28
Wt. of dry soil
370.94
445.61
513.42
443.25
387.53
0.00
0.00
Water content %
45.24%
48.57%
54.86%
59.18%
64.51 %
Density Determination
50ml
100m1
150ml
200ml
250m]
Water content %
45.24%
48.57%
54.86%
59.18%
64.51 %
Wt. of soil + mold
7.27
7.465
7.59
7.62
7.59
of mold
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
of soil in mold
2.68
2.875
3
3.03
3
density, pcf
F
80.48
86.34
90.09
90.99
90.09
density, pcf
55.41
58.11 1
58:18
1 57.16
54.76
SILICA
Maximum Dry Density 58.5 AMIA
Optimum Moisture 51.30% "SHTO R,S
Signature:
Proctor S05108 2/27/2006 11:15 AM

Proctor Report
Boyle Consulting Engineers
4340 Taggart Creek Rd Ste H
BOYLE
Charlotte, NC 28208
Project Name
Alchem
Job No. 05-133
Location of Project
n/a Sample No. 05109
Description of soil
White Tangle Silty Fine
Sand Soil Loc.
n-s�i e-
Test Performed by
Brian Sain
Test Date 8/15/2005
Blows/Layer
25
No. of Layers 3
Wt. Of Hammer 5.5
Mold Dimensions:
Diam
4
Ht. 4.625
Vol. 0.0333
Method: A - #4 Sieve
Speciment Prep:
Air -Dried
Water Content Determination
Pan #
p-1
p-8
p-21
Wt. of can + wet soil
727.32
763.29
937.02
Wt. of can + dry soil
543.66
558.98
708.07
Wt. of water
183.66
204.31
228.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Wt. of can
190.40
192.90
309.78
Wt. of dry soil
353.26
366.08
398.29
0.00
0.00
1 0.00
0.00
Water content %
51.99%
55.81 %
57.48%
Density Determination
100ml
150ml
200ml
Water content %
51.99%
55.81 %
57.48%
Wt. of soil + mold
7.63
7.855
7.835
t. of mold
4.59
4.59
4.59
Wt. of soil in mold
1 3.04
3.265
3.245
Wet density, pcf
91.29
98.05
97.45
Dry density, pcf
60.06
62.93
61.88
Proctor. Graph
70_
..
SILICA BLEND
MMM
1���
....................
....................
....................
Maximum Dry Density
• Him
�Optimum Moisture
•
Proctor S05109 2/27/2006 11:15 AM

Proctor
Report
Boyle Consulting Engineers
4340 Taggart Creek Rd Ste H
B0
Charlotte, NC 28208
Project Name
Alchem
Job No. 05-133
Location of Project
n/a Sample No. S05110
Description of Soil
Brown Fine gandy gilt
Soil Loc.
n-sl e
Test Performed by
Brian Sain
Test Date 8/16/2005
Blows/Layer
25
No. of Layers 3
Wt. Of Hammer 5.5
Mold Dimensions:
Diam
4
Ht. 4.625
Vol. 0.0333
Method: A - #4 Sieve
Speciment Prep:
Air -Dried
Water Content Determination
Pan #
p-22
p-1
p-8
Wt. of can + wet soil
990.37
1079.67
978.54
Wt. of can + dry soil
899.87
924.65
812.80
Wt. of water
90.50
155.02
165.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Wt. of can
1 308.20
190.31
193.53
Wt. of dry soil
591.67
734.34
619.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water content %
15.30%
21.11 %
26.76%
Density Determination
100ml
150ml
200ml
Water content %
15.30%
21.11 %
26.76%
Wt. of soil + mold
8.495
8.715
8.645
Wt. of mold
4.59
4.59
4.59
t. of soil in mold
3.905
4.125
4.055
Wet density, pcf
117.27
123.87
121.77
Dry density, pcf
101.71
102.28
1 96.06
i
p p
- P1 Cit®1..: Gra p�
i
T
o �10Q;
o_
RESIDUUM
Proctor S05110 2/27/2006 11:15 AM

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133 .
Procedures Regarding )Field Logs, Laboratory Data Sheets and Samples
In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are followed that
represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation engineering.
Specifically, field logs are prepared during performance of the drilling and sampling operations that are
intended to portray essentially field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information.
Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the
laboratory by more experienced soil engineers, and differences between the field logs and the final logs
exist.
The engineer preparing the report reviews the field and laboratory logs, classifications and test data, and
his judgment in interpreting this data, may make further changes.
Samples are taken in the field, some of which are later subjected to laboratory tests, are retained in our
laboratory for sixty (60) days and are then discarded unless special disposition is requested by our client.
Samples retained over a long period of time, even if sealed in jars, are subject to moisture loss, which
changes the apparent strength of cohesive soil generally increasing the strength from what was originally
encountered in the field. Since they are then no longer representative of the moisture conditions initially
encountered, an inspection of these samples should recognize this factor.
It is common practice in the soil and foundation engineering profession that field logs and laboratory data
sheets not be included in engineering reports because they do not represent the engineer's final opinions
as to appropriate descriptions for conditions encountered in the exploration and testing work. On the
other hand, we are aware that perhaps certain contractors submitting bids or proposals on work may have
an interest in studying these documents before submitting a bid or proposal. For this reason, the field logs
will be retained in our office for inspection by all contractors submitting a bid or proposal. We would
welcome the opportunity to explain any changes that have been and typically are made in the preparation
of our final reports, to the contractor or subcontractors, before the firm submits the bid or proposal, and to
describe how the information was obtained to the extent the contractor or subcontractor wishes. Results
of the laboratory tests are generally shown on the boring logs or described in the extent of the report, as
appropriate.
Soil Test Borings (ASTM D698)
Soil test borings are performed by mechanically twisting a continuous flight hollow -stem steel auger into
the soil. Soil sampling and penetration testing are performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.
At regular intervals, soil samples are obtained with' a standard 1.4-inch I. D., 2-inch O. D., split -tube
sampler. The sampler is first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, then driven an additional 12
inches with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to
drive the sampler the final 12 inches is recorded and designated the "penetration resistance". The
penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil's strength and foundation
supporting capability.
Representative portions of the obtained soil samples, are placed in glass jars or plastic containers and
transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined by an engineering geologist
or geotechnical engineer to verify the driller's field classifications.

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Soil Test Borings (ASTM STP #399)
Soil test borings are made by mechanically twisting a solid -stem, continuous -flight solid steel auger into
the soil. Soil samples are obtained at regular intervals. Soil classification and dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP) testing in accordance with ASTM Special Publication #399 is performed at each
boring location. The penetration resistance .value of the DCP test, when properly evaluated, can be an
indicator of the soil's strength and foundation supporting capability. The DCP test records the average
number of blows required to drive the test equipment a 1.75-inch increment by a 15-pound hammer
falling 20 inches and is designated the "penetration resistance" or blowcount.
Representative portions of the soil samples obtained were classified in our laboratory. Soil Test Boring
Records are attached, showing the soil descriptions, penetration resistances, and other subgrade
characteristics.
Test Pits
The excavatability of the existing materials in the subject area can be tested in the field with test pit
excavations using a medium -duty backhoe (typically John Deere 310C or equivalent) which can explore
to a depth of about 12 ft below the existing grade or a heavy-duty backhoe which can explore to a
maximum depth of about 20 ft below the existing grade. Test pit excavations permit visual examination
of a large portion (surface area) of exposed materials and allow direct observation of the relative ease or
difficulty of excavation. Test pits also allow the collection of representative samples of the excavated
materials. The test pit excavations are performed by others and observed by an engineering geologist or
geotechnical engineer familiar with the general site area and area geology.
Observation Wells (Piezometers)
Water level readings taken during the field operations do not provide information on the long term
fluctuations of the water table. When this information is required, observation wells are necessary to prevent
the borings from caving. Observation wells (when installed) are typically constructed by inserting PVC
plastic pipe to the desired depths. A closed end slotted portion of PVC pipe is attached to the bottom of the
plastic pipe to allow subsurface water to enter the observation well. Clean sand is backfilled around the
bottom slotted portion of the well. The remainder of the hole is backfilled with an impervious material, using
a bentonite or mortar cap to seal out surface water. The top of the PVC pipe has a removable cover to seal
out rainwater and surface water.

I .Y
Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
DEFINITIONS && TERMINOLOGY
Alluvium - Soil and/or rock materials that have been transported by water such that much of the original
structure or texture of the original material is lost or diminished.
Bedrock — Subsurface materials that cannot be excavated or pre -loosened with a track mounted backhoe
having a minimum bucket curling force rating of at least 25,500 pounds (i.e. Caterpillar 225) and
occupying an original volume of at least 1 cubic yard. Bedrock can be defined differently depending
upon the type of project. Auger refusal is the generally accepted "top of bedrock", however, zones of
soft material may exist at lower elevations than the auger refusal. In such cases, bedrock is usually
defined as material having a rock quality designation (RQD) of 90 or greater.
Building Limits - the plan outline of the exterior of the building (either wall or footing) perimeter.
Caved and dry depths — A measured depth of a borehole partially filled with soil checked 24 hours or
more after being drilled. This phenomenon, sometimes designated as a "C-" on the Test Boring
Records, may indicate the presence of ground water at or just below the indicated depth which likely
caused the soils to collapse into the hole. It may also be the result of soil cuttings left in the hole upon
removal of the drilling tools.
Dikes and sills — dikes and sills are igneous intrusions (similar to volcanic lava) that are substantially
wider than they are thick (i.e. Planar). Dikes are often steeply inclined or nearly vertical where sills
are oriented horizontally or tabular. These igneous intrusions were injected along zones of weakness
in existing bedrock, such as faults, fractured zones and joint concentrations.
Drainage Fill: Free -draining, coarse -grained soil which is often placed behind the surficial vegetative
cover.
Engineered fill — Engineered Fill soil shall be generally free of roots larger than 1-inch diameter and
shall have an organic content less than 5 (five) percent per ASTM D-2974. Engineered fill should be
an approved material, free of debris (no more than 5 percent by weight), and have a liquid limit and
plasticity index less than 40 and 15, respectively. Fill used for raising site grade or for replacement of
material that is undercut should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture
conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and uniformly compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density obtained in accordance with ASTM Specification D-
698, standard Proctor method. Soil types usually suitable for use as engineered fill include: SC, SM,
SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, GW, ML, and CL.
Existing fill — Soil materials transported by man and placed by man into their current position. Existing
fill may be documented or undocumented, suitable or unsuitable.
Geotechnical Exploration — A study that is performed after building and infrastructure positioning has
occurred and preliminary grades have been estimated in order to identify potential problems with the
building location and provide recommendations for building and pavement construction.

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Definitions & Terminology (Continued)
Ground water - The water levels are those water levels actually measured in the borehole at the times
indicated. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in a
granular soil. In clays and plastic silts, the accurate determination of water levels may require several
days for the water level to stabilize.
In situ — In the natural or original position or place.
Junction Strength: Breaking tensile strength of junctions when tested in accordance with GRI-GG2 as
modified by AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 1997 Interim, using a single rib
having greater of 3 junctions or 8 inches (203 mm) and tested at strain rate of '10 percent per minute
based on this gauge length.
Long -Term Design Strength (LTDS or Tal): The maximum allowable stress level of the polymeric grid
used in the internal stability design calculations of the retaining section. Ultimate tensile strength
reduced by the effects of polymer creep, installation damage, and durability.
Long -Term Allowable Design Strength (Ta): The long-term design strength (LTDS or Tal) reduced
by the Factor of Safety for design uncertainties (Ta = Tal/FSuNc).
Organics — Material derived from living or formerly living organisms usually plants such as limbs, roots,
leaves and bark.
Partially weathered rock —An undisturbed residual material with standard penetration -resistances in
excess of 100 blows per foot using ASTM 1586 standards.
Physiographic — An area of similar topographic landforms and geomorphologic processes.
Piedmont - any area near the foot of a mountain, particularly the plateau extending from New York to
Alabama east of the Blue Ridge and/or Appalachian Mountains and west of the Atlantic coastal plain.
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration — A geotechnical exploration that is performed before building
and infrastructure positioning has occurred and before preliminary grades have been estimated in
order to identify potential problems with the building and infrastructure design and provide
preliminary recommendations for building and pavement construction.
Reinforced Backfill: Compacted engineered fill placed behind the drainage fill or directly behind the
surficial vegetative cover.
Rock - Subsurface materials that cannot be excavated or pre -loosened with 'a track mounted backhoe
having a minimum bucket curling force rating of at least 25,500 pounds (i.e. Caterpillar 225) and
occupying an original volume of at least '/z cubic yard. Mechanized auger refusal is the generally
accepted "top of rock".
Saprolite or saprolitic — An undisturbed residual soil material weathered in -place that retains the visual
appearance (coloration, foliation or cleavage, relict joints, etc.) of the parent bedrock and also retains
a portion of the intergranular bond strength once present in the parent rock,

Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration & Earthen Embankment Analysis October 24, 2005
Proposed New Tank Farm Pad, Rockwell, North Carolina Final
BCE Project 05-133
Definitions & Terminology (Continued)
? 1
Soil, — Materials such as sand, silt and clay that are readily excavated with regular duty grading
equipment.
Standard Penetration - (Blows/Ft) refers to the blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on
a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler, as specified in ASTM D-1586. The blow count is commonly
referred to as the N-value.
Structural Geogrids: A polymeric grid formed by a regular network of integrally connected tensile
elements with apertures of sufficient size to allow interlocking with surrounding soil, rock or earth
and function primarily as reinforcement.
Topsoil - Organic surficial soil containing more than 5 percent by weight organic material.
Ultimate Tensile Strength: Breaking tensile strength when tested in accordance with GRI-GGI, as
modified by AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 2002 Interim, using a single rib
having greater of 3 junctions or 8 inches (203 mm) and tested at, strain rate of 10 percent per minute
based on this gauge length.
Unsuitable Soils — Unsuitable soils are determined on a site by site basis, however, there are several soil
types that are typically considered unsuitable to provide support of building foundations. These are:
CH -highly plastic clays, topsoil and highly organic soils (containing 10 percent or more organics by
weight), and undocumented fills containing slag and/or other deleterious debris. Unsuitable and
marginally unsuitable soil types often include CL, MH, OL, OH, and Pt (Peat).
In

s.a
TABLE 1
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
At
erberg Limits
Sample
Maximum
Optimum
Natural
Sample
Sample
Depth
Dry
Moisture,
Moisture
Percent
LL
PL
PI
ID
Type
Interval
Density
Fines
feet
c
percent
Percent
Silica
Bulk
0-5
58.5
51.3
54.0
17.0
Non -plastic
Silica
Blend
Bulk
0-5
63.0
56.3
48.0
43.1
Non -plastic
Residuum
Bulk
0-5
102.8
19.5
17.9
53
Non -plastic
Notes:
pcf = pounds per cubic foot
percent fines = percentage by weight of material retained on a #200 sieve.
LL = liquid limit
PL = plastic limit
PI = plasticity index