WQ0004270_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018

610 East'tenter Avenue, Mooresville, NC to Crowders Creek Wastew... https://www...google.com/maps/dir/610+East+Center+Avenue,+Moore...
Goggle Maps , 610 East Center Avenue, Mooresville, NC Drive 48.5 miles, 1 h 5 min
to Crowders Creek Wastewater
610 E Center Ave
Mooresville, NC 28115
Get on 1-77 S/US-21 S in Davidson from S Main St, NC-115 S
and Langtree Rd
13 min (5.7 mi)
1.. Head south on Evergreen St toward E Center Ave
--- - _ ---,. — ----- 197 ft
r 2. Turn right onto E Center Ave
h 3. Turn left onto S Church St
& 4. Turn right onto College St
0.5 mi
0.5 mi
0.1 mi
Map data ©2019 1 mil I
1 of 3
8/26/2019, 4:16 PM

610 East Center Avenue, Mooresville, NC to Crowders Creek Wastew... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/610+East+Center+Avenue,1�Mi oore...
41.
5.
Turn left onto S. Main St
---
1.2 mi
t
6.
Continue onto NC-115 S
�. _.---- 2.1 mi
(•
7.
Turn right onto Langtree Rd
1.1 mi
8.
Use the left 2 lanes to turn left onto the Interstate
77 S/US 21 S ramp
0.2 mi
Follow 1-77
S,1-485 Outer and 1-85 S to S Main St in Lowell.
Take
exit 22 from 1-85 S
29 min (31.1 mi)
9.
Merge onto 1-77 S/US-21 S
Continue to follow 1-77 S
11.1 mi
10.
Use the right 2 lanes to take exit 1913-A toward
1-85 S/Pineville
1.1 mi
11.
Merge onto 1-485 Outer
--._..-- _ __.._ _— 10.4 mi
12.
Use the right lane to take exit 9-10 toward
9-1 0/interstate 85/U.S. 29/U.S. 74/Greensboro
/Spartanburg/Wilkinson Blvd
0.4 mi
13.
Keep right at the fork to continue on Exit 10B,
follow signs for 1-85 S/Gastonia/Spartanburg and
merge onto 1-85 S
— — 7.8mi
14.
Take exit 22 toward Cramerton/Lowell
0.3 mi
Take Redbud Dr, Hoffman Rd and Forbes Rd to Davis
Heights Dr in Gastonia
18 min (9.4 mi)
41 15. Turn left onto S Main St (signs for Cramerton)
0.4 mi
t 16. Continue onto Redbud Dr
2.1 mi
t 17. Continue onto Hoffman Rd
Pass by McDonald's (on the left in 0.7 mi)
_--- ... -- 2.0 mi
2 of 3 8/26/2019, 4:16 PM

610 Easf ,';enter Avenue, Mooresville, NC to Crowders Creek Wastew... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/610+East+Center+Avenue,+Moore...
t f8. Continue onto Robinwood Rd
---- --- 0.9 mi
47
19.
Turn left onto Union Rd
__.._....
.... _..... - _ — - --- —
- -- - 0.4 mi
p
20.
Turn right onto 2416/Robinson Rd
0 Continue to follow Robinson Rd
—_
.--_... _.—_._...... --_.._._. _.---__ _ _ .._....._......... .........--- _ - .
- 0.6 mi
*
21.
Turn right onto Little Mountain Rd
0.8
mi
°7
22.
Turn left onto Forbes Rd
—
1.9
mi
r
23.
Turn right onto US-321 N
0.3
mi
J*
24.
Turn right onto Davis Heights Dr
161 ft
1 h (46.2 mi)
A B Carter Inc
4801 York Hwy, Gastonia, NC 28052
t 25. Head west on Davis Heights Dr toward US-321 N
161 ft
a� 26. Turn left at the 1 st cross street onto US-321 S
2.0 mi
Ps 27. Turn right
0 Destination will be on the right
— 0.2 mi
5 min (2.3 mi)
Crowders Creek Wastewater
5642 York Hwy, Gastonia, -NC 28052
These directions are for planning purposes only.
You may find that construction projects, traffic,
weather, or other events may cause conditions to
differ from the map results, and you should plan
your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or
notices regarding your route.
3 of 3 8/26/2019, 4:16 PM

TEXAS A&M
344
GRILIFE L-59-0808
EXTENSION
Figure 1: E6most common form ofdisinfection for onsite systems is tablet chlorination.
Tablet chlorination
Richard Weaver and Bruce Lesikar
Professor in Soil and Environmental Microbiology,
,Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer
Texas A&M System
stewater to
s must Ult
t is sprayed
are
treatment device a pipe to
prevent odors and remove d seasenc usiri microorganisms. ;
W P g g
the contact devicethrough
i
Wastewater can be disinfected with chlorine, ozone, and ultraviolet i
M contact device usually
light. For onsite wastewater treatment systems, the most common form ofdisin-
contains a basin, where the tube
fection is tablet chlorination. i
containing a stack of chlorine tablets
is placed. M bottom tablet in the
Tablet chlorinators generally ✓ A storage reservoir, usually a
tube is in contact with the wastewa-
have four components: pump tank, where the wastewater i
E„vin g through the basin. As
ter �
✓ Chlorine tablets. is stored before it is distributed. i
that tablet dissolves and/or erodes,
✓ A tube that holds the tablets. Before bein chlorinated waste-
g
the tablet above it falls by gravity to
'
✓ A contact device, which puts the water from a home is treated by a
replace it.
chlorine tablets into contact with secondary treatment device, usually
A tablet can dissolve quickly or
the wastewater. in an aerobic treatment unit or media
slowly, depending on the amount
<• wastewater moves from the
Cher. ��
i � �
of wastewater coming into contact

Use only chlorine
tablets that are
approved
for wastewater
with it and the length oftime it is in
contact. A balance must be struck
regarding the contact time in the
chlorinator basin: Too much contact
time causes the wastewater to be
overchlorinated and the tablets to be
consumed rapidly; too little contact
time, and the wastewater is not chlo-
rinated enough.
Use only chlorine tablets that are
approved for use in wastewater. my
are made of calcium hypochlorite.
ff6se tablets dissolve in the wastewa-
ter, releasing the hypochlorite, which
then becomes hypochlorous acid, the
primary disinfectant.
Do not use swimming pool
chlorine tablets. iE y are onk made
from trichloroisocyanuric acid, which
is not approved for use in wastewa-
ter treatment systems. Mse tablets
make the chlorine available too slowly
for it to be eMtive. If wetted repeat-
edly, they also can produce nitrogen
chloride, which can explode.
Do not combine tablets of
trichloroisocyanuric acid with
calcium hypochlorite, because the
combination will form the explosive
compound nitrogen chloride. Read
the list of active ingredients on the
tablet label to make sure you are us-
ing calcium hypochlorite.
Because chlorine tablets are
caustic, handle them with care. Wear
gloves to protect your skin from
direct contact with the tablets. Moist
tablets are the most caustic; handle
them with special care.
Also, because chlorine gas col-
lects in the tablet container, open the
container in awell-ventilated area.
Chlorine gas can escape from the
tablets and container, reducing the ef-
fectiveness of the tablets and possibly
corroding metal products stored near
the container.
An� being ch lorinated, the
wastewater enters the pump tank,
where the disinfection process is
completed. At this point the waste-
water is called reclaimed water. Texas ✓ Tablets can become compacted in
regulations require that reclaimed the tube. To reduce the chances
water contain at least 0.1 m illigram of compaction, place two to (
tablets in the tube at a time.
I
of chlorine per liter of wastewater or
have no more than 200 fecal coli-
forms (bacteria from human wastes)
per 100 milliliters of wastewater.
An easy way to determine the
chlorine concentration in your
reclaimed water is by using chlorine
test kits. E6y are available in stores
that sell swimming pool supplies.
In most satisfactory kits require
that you mix a small amount of
reclaimed water in a solution and
compare the mixture's color with
those shown in the kit. :t.
, kits using
paper strips may be less satisfactory
because they do not determ ine the
actual concentration of chlorine in
the water.
Usually, ifatest detects any
chlorine, the wastewater will contain
less than 200 fecal coliforms per 100
milliliters. But this does not guaran-
tee that it is free of disease -causing
organisms. To reduce the risk of hav-
ing any disease -causing organisms,
the wastewater should have at least
0.1 milligram of chlorine per liter.
How to keep it working
You can either buy a chlorinator
commercially or have one built by an
installer. Please follow the m anufac-
turer's recommendations for main-
tainingthe system. Other guidelines:
✓ Make sure the chlorinator
contains chlorine tablets at all
times. Inspect it weekly to ensure
that tablets are present and in
contact with the wastewater. Add
chlorine tablets as necessary. Just
as cars do not operate without
gasoline, tablet chlorinators do
not operate without chlorine
tablets.
✓ If you use a spray distribution
system and keep a maintenance
contract in eNt with a licensed
provider, your contract will
probably stipulate that you, the
homeowner, replace the chlorine
tablets.

Figure 2: Wastewater disinfection begins in the contact basin.
✓ If the tablets do become com-
pacted in the tube, or if a portion
of the bottom tablet has not
dissolved and is holding up the
rest of the stack, remove the tube
and wash out the blockage with
a stream of water from a garden
hose.
✓ Use on ly tablets that have been
certiM for use in domes-
tic wastewater systems. State
regulations do not allow tablets
for swimming pools and other
applications to be used to treat
wastewater.
✓ Use a chlorine test kit to deter-
mine the chlorine concentration
in the pump tank.
✓ If you smell septic odors when
the reclaimed water is being
sprayed, contact your main-
tenance provider to check the
system.
Tablet chlorinators
do not operate
without
chlorine tablets

The Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems series of publications is a result of collaborative efforts of various agencies,
organizations and funding.sources. We would like to acknowledge the following collaborators:
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board USEPA 319(h) Program
Texas On -Site Wastewater Treatment Research Council Texas AgriLife Extension Service
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Agri Life Research
Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service
AgriLifeExtension.tarnmedu
More Extension publications can be found at AgriLifeBookstore.org
Educational programs of the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service are open to all people
without regard to race, color, sex, disability, religion, age, or national origin.
The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating.
Produced by Texas A&M AgriLife Communications

.Bealle, James
From: Bealle, James
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:49 AM
To: Goodrich, David
Cc: Pitner, Andrew; Parker, Michael
Subject: FW: Wastewater Spray Irrigation -AB Carter Permit WQ0004270
Attachments: Scan0052.pdf
David,
Recently, an inspection was conducted A.B. Carter, Inc. A reduction in the monitoring frequency/parameters
was discussed due to a significant decrease in the volume of waste being treated, so I advised them to submit a
written proposal which I have received today (attached).
I hope to have the inspection report, and staff report available for your review later this week. Thanks.
jb
E-mail correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
James Bealle <james.bealle(c�ncdenr.gov>
Environmental Specialist
NCDENR(MRO)/DWR/WQROS
From: Al Abedi lmailto:abedi abcarter.coml
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:32 AM
To: Bealle, James
Cc: 'Lee Pennington'; Leo Moretz; rcraigCa_babcarter.com; [e-mail]
Subject: Wastewater Spray Irrigation -AB Carter Permit WQ0004270
Dear James,
It was a pleasure meeting you during your inspection here at AB Carter in Gastonia. As per our phone conversation, we
would appreciate if you would consider in reducing the frequency of testing required pertaining to our spray irrigation
field . Please see attached formal request.
Regards,
Al Abedi
VP Manufacturing
AB Carter, Inc.
704-874-2745
[e-mail]

,Bealle, James
From: Al Abedi <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:32 AM
To: Bealle, James
Cc: 'Lee Pennington'; Leo Moretz; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Wastewater Spray Irrigation -AB Carter Permit WQ0004270
Attachments: Scan0052.pdf
Dear James,
It was a pleasure meeting you during your inspection here at AB Carter in Gastonia. As per our phone conversation, we
would appreciate if you would consider in reducing the frequency of testing required pertaining to our spray irrigation
field . Please see attached formal request.
Regards,
Al Abedi
VP Manufacturing
AB Carter, Inc.
704-874-2745
[e-mail]

I
February 16,2015.
Mr.. James B. Bealle III.
Environmental Specialist
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division- of Water Resources
610 East center Avenue,
Suite 301
Mooresville,, NC 28115
Dear.Mr. Bealle:.
SubjectPermit Renewal -and Modification
Torihit NQ:. WQQ0,042.70
AB Carter, Inc.
Wastewater Spray Irrigation
Gaston County
It is our understanding that ouirsubioct permit is up for the renewal in the month ofMay
2015., By a copy of this . letf er we - are requesting review and reduction in frequency of the testing
required by this permit for the following reasons-
I- This -location QTigin4y was set up: for 5,000GPD, now we are. zenerating,only 687jGQP in
014 per the reports. The data"p als' sh
ows, Qws, similar GPD s for the, past 6 years.
2- Atthe height of Our` operation we had, 285people employed at this location. Now
unfortunately due to the economy -down tam we are down to 50 people at the, plant in any
given. day for the past 6 years as well.
f.
:3- The cost and time associated with the additional testing puts undo stress: on our limited
resources.
We appreciate your review of ourrequest, Our goal is to. run our business in aeost effective
way and comply with all the regulations -set forth while- keeping the business in operation at the
same time.
Sincerely,
a j
z
.............
Al Abed.
VP of Manufacturing
AB Carter, Inc.
704-874-2745,
abedWabcarter.com
P.O. Box 5l8,Gastonia, NC28,0S3-0518 USA; Phone: 704­865-1201. Fiix,-. 70ZI-964-8870

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Purdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
IT - T r
IN �K
40
44 0 as�
'Mmm ��ff�x
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
SURFACE IRRIGATION
r GENERAL INFORMATION
1 II PfQ,S� L N �0�
Owner: IN �J- � County: �oOV�'�'''L�
Permit # WQOOO&J��Project Name:
\Issuance Date: b6/2z/off Expiration Date: c5 ^
ermittee Contact:
ORC Name: ert # St qg7 S-,� Telephone No.: 7 _z't�
Email address:
Backup ORC Name: Cert # Telephone No.:
Reasov for Inspection
ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP Facility Start-up
Inspection Summary: (additional comments may be included on attached pages)
Is a follow-up inspection necessary yes
Inspector Name/Title: Peggy Finley, Environmental Specialist
Tel. No. 704/235-2183 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection: ,

A
Surface Irrigation
Permit #WQ00
Type
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
Lagoon Spray, Low Rate
Lagoon Drip, Low Rate
Treatment a
Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit.
Do all treatment units appear to be operational. If no, note below.
Influent pump s 'on
>Allpu s presen , operational
een, maintainrs even ced
ck-up power
Flow Measurement — Influent
Is flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is flowmeter operating properly?
Does flowmeter operate continuously?
Does flowmeter record flow?
Does flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?
Bypass st present
re excessive is
a essiv aor�ed
Flow Measurement — Water -Use Records
Is water use metered?
Are the daily average values properly calculated?
Page 2
Disinfection
_ Is the system working? Y Is the system properly maintained?
Tablets Gas Liquid UV
If tablets, proper size? Present in Cylinder(s)?
If gas/liquid, does cylinder/tank storage seem safe?
If bulbs, are replacement bulbs on hand?
Is contact chamber free of sludge, solids and growth?
Comments:
F easurement — Effluent
Is the flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is the flowmeter- operating properly?
Does the flowmeter monitor continuously?
Does the flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?
�MAN
:3 1 9 1_4

AV
Surface Irrigation Page 3
Permit #WQ00
Efflue tora e
AGOON SEPTIC TANK(s) ABOVE GROUND TANK OTHER
umber of months storage Spill control plan on site
Above ground tank Aerated Mixed
In ground tank Aerated Mixed
Storage Lagoons
Chec any/all that apply
Influent structure (free of obstructions)
Banks/berms (are there signs of seepage, overtopping, down cutting or erosion)
Vegetation (is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank
Liner (if visible, is it intact)
Baffles/curtains (in need of repair)
Freeboard (>2 feet from overtopping)
Staff gauge ( clearly marked)
Evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or laying down/broken)
_Unusual color (very black, textile colors),
�NFoam (are antifoam agents used)
Floating mats (sludge, plants, inorganics)
xcessive solids buildup (from bottom)
Aerators/mixers operational (if present)
Effluent structure (free of obstructions, easily accessible)
Co ments:
droral
6/treWent
Comment:
Disposal final end use
Is the application equipment present and operational?
Is application equipment`in need repair?
�1 Spray heads calibrated this past year?
Are cover crops the type specified in permit?
Is cover crop in need of improvement?
Signs of runoff? T,3 Signs of ponding? Y--� Signs of drift?
Comments:

Surface Irrigation
Permit #WQ00
Are buffers adequate?
Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
_< Are restrictions for use of these areas specified?
Is permit being followed?
Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?
Recordkeepinq
Page 4
Is permit available upon request?
Are flow rates less than permitted flow?
Are monitoring reports present: NDMRNDAR� �7
Are operatio s present? _ Comple e?
Are la sheets available for review?
Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
Are all samples analyzed for the required parameters?
Is field parameter certification required?
Are there any 2L GW quality violations?
Are annual soil reports available?
Is the operation and maintenance manual present? Complete?
Has DWQ received any complaints regarding the facility in the last 12 months?
Comment:
Groundwater Monitorinca
Does the permit require monitoring wells? If so,
are the monitoring wells properly installed according to the permit?
are the wells properly identified?
are the wells damaged?
C�'47�

`n
���ll
Affl�
NC®ENR FiLE
North Carolina_DeDartment of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
AB Carter, Inc.
Post Office Box 518
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Attention: Ernest W. Sumner
Dear Mr. Sumner:
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Division of Water Quality
Dee Freeman
Secretary
November 7, 2012
RE: Surface Irrigation Inspection Report
Permit No. WQ0004270
Facility: AB Carter
Gaston County, N.C.
Enclosed you will find the report for the compliance inspection that was conducted on November 2, 2012.
The facility appears to be operating satisfactorily and in compliance with the referenced permit.
Should you have any questions, feel free to call me at 704/235-2183 or contact me via email at
peggy.finley .ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Peggy Finley
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure: Inspection Report
Cc: Lee Pennington, AB Carter, Inc., POB 518, Gastonia 28053 w/enclosure (electronic mail)
MAF/AB Carter/ inspection rpt 11-2-12
Nne
OrthCaTolii
Division of Water Quality / Aquifer Protection Section / Mooresville Regional Office Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] �l 1� ¢�1,�//t
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org !/ V 6 lli

State of North Carolina
Department of Environs meet •�- -�
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Purdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
Charles Wakild, P.E., Director
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
SURFACE IRRIGATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
Owner: AB Carter, Inc
Permit # WQ0004270
Issuance Date: 6/22/06
Permittee Contact: Ernest W. Sumner
ORC Name: Lee Pennington Cert #S1987583
Email address: [e-mail]
Backup ORC Name: Charles Parker Cert #S119607
County: Gaston
Project Name: AB Carter
Expiration Date: 5/31/15
Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
Telephone No.: 704/874-2754
Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
Reason for Inspection
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP Facility Start=up
Inspection Summary: (additional comments may be included on attached pages)
The treatment system appears to be operating satisfactorily. The waste stream is reduced
and solely domestic now. The condition of the irrigation fields was good.
Records were complete and in good order.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary? yes X no
Inspector's Names/Titles: Peggy Finley, Environmental Specialist
Tel. No. 704/235-2183 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection: 11/2/12

A,
Surface Irrigation
-Permit-gEt"IQ0004270
Type
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
_X_ Lagoon Spray, Low Rate
Lagoon Drip, Low Rate
Treatment
Y Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit.
Y Do all treatment units appear to be operational. If no, note below.
Treatment — extended aeration
X All pumps present, operational
X Bar screen, maintained
Bars evenly spaced
Back-up power
Flow Measurement — Influent NA
Is flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is flowmeter operating properly?
Does flowmeter operate continuously?
Does flowmeter record flow?
Does flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?
Bypass structure present
Free of excessive debris
Bans excessively corroded
Flow Measurement — Water -Use Records
Y Is water use metered?
Are the daily average values properly calculated?
Page 2
Disinfection
_Y _ Is the system working? _Y_ Is the system properly maintained?
_Y_ _Tablets Gas Liquid UV
_Y_ If tablets, proper size? _Y_ Present in Cylinder(s)?
If gas/liquid, does cylinder/tank, storage seem safe?
If bulbs, are replacement bulbs on hand?
Y Is contact chamber free of sludge, solids and growth?
Flow Measurement — Effluent
Is the flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is the flowmeter operating properly?
_ Does the flowmeter monitor continuously?
Does the flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?

Surface Irrigation Page 3
Effluent Storage
X LAGOON SEPTIC TANK(s) ABOVE GROUND TANK OTHER
Number of months storage Spill control plan on site
Above ground tank Aerated Mixed
In ground tank Aerated Mixed
Storage Lagoon
Check any/all that apply
Y Influent structure (free of obstructions)
N Banks/berms (are there signs of seepage, overtopping, down cutting or erosion)
_N_ Vegetation (is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank
Liner (if visible, is it intact)
Baffles/curtains (in need of repair)
Y Freeboard (>2 feet from overtopping)
—Y—Staff gauge (clearly marked)
_N_ Evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or laying down/broken)
—N—Unusual color (very black, textile colors)
N Foam (are antifoam agents used)
_N_Floating mats (sludge, plants, inorganics)
Excessive solids buildup (from bottom)
Y Aerators/mixers operational (if present)
Y Effluent structure (free of obstructions, easily accessible)
Disposal (final end use)
Y Is the application equipment present and operational?
_N_ Is application equipment in need repair?
_N_ Spray heads calibrated this past year?
Y Are cover crops the type specified in permit?
_N_ Is cover crop in need of improvement?
_N Signs of runoff?
_Y Signs of ponding?
_N_ Signs of drift?
Y Are buffers adequate?
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
N Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
Are restrictions for use of these areas specified?
Y Is permit being followed?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?

Surface Irrigation Page 4
.-Permit4=0004270
Recordkeeping
Y Is permit available upon request?
_Y_ Are flow rates less than permitted flow?
Y 'Are monitoring reports present: NDMR X NDAR _X_
Y Are operational logs present? _ Complete?
Y Are lab sheets available for review?
Y Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
_Y_ Are all samples analyzed for the required parameters?
_Y_ Is field parameter certification required?
_N_ Are there any 2L GW quality violations?
Y Are annual soil reports available?
_Y_ Is the operation and maintenance manual present? Complete?
N Has DWQ received any complaints regarding the facility in the last 12 months?
Groundwater Monitorinq
_Y_ Does the permit require monitoring wells? If so,
_Y_ are the monitoring wells properly installed according to the permit?
_Y _ are the wells properly identified?
_N_ are the wells damaged?

0A1�G- onoa€iic ' ` t n Plr?one: 7 - 6. ' Yveb
Grower.•
A B Carter, Inc.
Copies To:
PG�U,UITURe„Nn
PO Box518
-
Soil
Gastonia, NC 28053
Test Report
'FO�Hnrn s''
SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
Parm: AB CARTER
INC.
Received: 03/19/2012
Completed: 04/05/2012 Links to Helpful Information
Gaston County
Agronomist Comments
12
'eld o 'ou
Apglied L'x�te
ec_uerti ns
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
00112
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim,E
0
50-70 0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M
0
120-200 0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
W/V CEC BSS6 Ac pH P-1 KI
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N
1VH4-N
Na
MIN 0.46
0.82 9.1 100.0 0.0 8.7 122 180
74.0
16.0
186 88
88
590
590
303
42
3.7
.glie 3
tiolts
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
00212
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim,E
0
50-70 20-40
0
0
0
0
0
.0
pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/1'im,M
0
120-200 0-20
0
0
0
0
0
.0
pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HJP,
W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg106
Mn-I Mn-AI(1)
Mn-Al(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N
N714-N
Na
MIN 0.60
0.78 6.9 93.0 0.5 7.2 59 147
66.0
16.0
170 101
101
955
955
286
29
1.9
North Carolina
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
- Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture

e i LO) P.
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Division of Water Quality Secretary
December 9, 2010
AB Carter, Inc.
Post Office Box 518
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Attention: Ernest W. Sumner
RE: Surface Irrigation Inspection Report
Permit No. W00004270
Facility: AB Carter
Gaston County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Sumner:
Enclosed you will find the report for the compliance inspection that was conducted on December 3, 2010.
The facility appears to be in compliance with the referenced permit.
The Encon evaporator which was installed in early 2009 appeared to be effectively reducing the high
concentrations of sodium that were detected in the treated wastewater. It is our understanding though
that the process that was responsible for the sodium problem has been eliminated and the evaporator
was observed to be shut down. In 2007, this office requested that groundwater compliance monitoring
include sampling for sodium, calcium and magnesium in order to evaluate any impacts. This additional
sampling can be deleted from the groundwater monitoring regimen until such time that the process and
evaporator are reactivated.
As you may be aware, action by the North Carolina legislature has extended the expiration date of your
permit until May 31, 2015. A renewal application must be submitted to the division at least 180 days
prior to that date.
Should you have any questions, feel free to call me at 704/235-2183 or contact me via email at
peggy.finley(7a,ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
vC9, , �
Peggy Finley
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure: Inspection Report
Cc: Lee Pennington, AB Carter, Inc., POB 518, Gastonia 28053 w/enclosure
MAF/AB Carter/ inspection rpt 12-3-10
NorthCaro/l/h
Division of Water Quality / Aquifer Protection Section / Mooresville Regional Office Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]a�uta[`l
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org �/ Y

r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Purdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
A4
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
SURFACE IRRIGATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
Owner: AB Carter, Inc
Permit # WQ0004270
Issuance Date: 6/22/06
Permittee Contact: Ernest W. Sumner
ORC Name: Lee Pennington Cert #S1987583
Email address: [e-mail]
Backup ORC Name: Charles Parker Cert #S119607
County: Gaston
Project Name: AB Carter
Expiration Date: 5/31/15
Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
Telephone No.: 7041874-2754
Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
Reason for Inspection
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP Facility Start-up
Inspection Summary. (additional comments may be included on attached pages)
The treatment system appears to be operating satisfactorily. Based on monitoring data, the
evaporator that was installed in early 2009 was effectively removing sodium from the waste
stream. However, that part of the manufacturing process which produced the sodium inputs
has been shut down. The evaporator is currently not in use.
The condition of the irrigation fields was good.
Records were complete and in good order.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary? yes X no
Inspector's Names/Titles: Peggy Finley, Environmental Specialist; Maria Schutte, Senior Env. Tech.
Tel. No. 704/235-2183 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection: 12/3/10

Surface Irrigation
Permit #WQ0004270
Type
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
_X_ Lagoon Spray, Low Rate
Lagoon Drip, Low Rate
Treatment
Y Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit.
Y Do all treatment units appear to be operational. If no, note below.
Treatment — extended aeration
X All pumps present, operational Bypass structure present
X Bar screen, maintained Free of excessive debris
Bars evenly spaced Bars excessively corroded
Back-up power
Flow Measurement — Influent NA
Is flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is flowmeter operating properly?
Does flowmeter operate continuously?
Does flowmeter record flow?
Does flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?
Flow Measurement — Water -Use Records
Y Is water use metered?
Are the daily average values properly calculated?
Disinfection
Page 2
_Y _ Is the system working? _Y_ Is the system properly maintained?
_Y_ Tablets Gas Liquid _Y_ UV
_Y_ If tablets, proper size? _Y_ Present in Cylinder(s)?
If gas/liquid, does cylinder/tank storage seem safe?
If bulbs, are replacement bulbs on hand?
_Y Is contact chamber free of sludge, solids and growth?
Flow Measurement — Effluent
Is the flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is the flowmeter operating properly?
_ Does the flowmeter monitor continuously?
Does the flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?

J
Surface Irrigation
Permit #WQ0004270
Effluent Storaae
Page 3
X LAGOON SEPTIC TANK(s) ABOVE GROUND TANK OTHER
Number of months storage Spill control plan on site
Above ground tank Aerated Mixed
In ground tank Aerated Mixed
Storage Lagoon
Check any/all that apply
Y Influent structure (free of obstructions)
N Banks/berms (are there signs of seepage, overtopping, down cutting or erosion)
_N_ Vegetation (is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank
Liner (if visible, is it intact)
Baffles/curtains (in need of repair)
Y Freeboard (>2 feet from overtopping)
—Y—Staff gauge (clearly marked)
_N_ Evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or laying down/broken)
—N Unusual color (very black, textile colors)
N Foam (are antifoam agents used)
_N_Flo ating mats (sludge, plants, inorganics)
_N_ Excessive solids buildup (from bottom)
Y Aerators/mixers operational (if present)
Y Effluent structure (free of obstructions, easily accessible)
Disposal (final end use)
Y Is the application equipment present and operational?
_N_ Is application equipment in need repair?
_N_ Spray heads calibrated this past year?
Y Are cover crops the type specified in permit?
_N_ Is cover crop in need of improvement?
N_ Signs of runoff?
Y_ Signs of ponding?
_N_ Signs of drift?
Y Are buffers adequate?
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
N Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
Are restrictions for use of these areas specified?
Y Is permit being followed?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?

Surface Irrigation
Permit #WQ0004270
Recordkeeping
Page 4
Y Is permit available upon request?
Y Are flow rates less than permitted flow?
Y Are monitoring reports present: NDMR X NDAR X_
Y Are operational logs. present? _ Complete?
Y Are lab sheets available for review?
Y Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
Y Are all samples analyzed for the required parameters?
Y Is field parameter certification required?
_N_ Are there any 2L GW quality violations?
Y Are annual soil reports available?
Y_ Is the operation and maintenance manual present? Complete?
N Has DWQ received any complaints regarding the facility in the last 12 months?
Groundwater Monitoring
Y Does the permit require monitoring wells? If so,
_Y_ are the monitoring wells properly installed according to the permit?
_Y_ are the wells properly identified?
_N_ are the wells damaged?

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ndw.gov/agenomi/ enomi/
Report No: 31346
K}.
Grower-
A B Carter, Inc.
Copies To:
PO Box518
iTy A k
oil
Test Rport
Gastonia, NC 28053
•`r'r•.mrn,�''•
SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
Farm:
AB CARTER
Received: 03/08/2010
Completed:
04/05/2010
Gaston County
Agronomist Comments
12
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr
T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
00110
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim,E
0
50-70
0-20
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
1,
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim,E
0
50-70
0-20
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class ILN%
WIT CBC
BS% Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-A1
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27
0.85 7.3
100.0 0.0 8.5 75 133
75.0 16.0
163
77
77
472
472
264
30
3.0
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr
T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
N20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
00210
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim,E
0
50-70
0-20
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim,E
0
50-70
0-20
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
WIT CEC
BS% Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13
0.82 6.6
Ion 0.0 8.5 83 158
74.0 15.0
183
89
89
413
413
264
113
4.0
North Carol i na
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible Is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
-Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Web site: www.neagr.gov/agronomi/
Report No: 32681
N Ili.
Grower-
A B Carter, Inc.
Copies To:
,• f—
PO Box
518
--�:
Soil
Test Rport
Gastonia, NC 28053
'•r, •,,,,, ��'�'
SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
Farm:
A B CARTER
INC
Received: 02/17/2009
Completed:
03/25/2009
Gaston County
Agronomist Comments
12
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr
T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
00109
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim,E
0
50-70
40.60
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M
0
120-200
30-50
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
W/V CEC
BS% Ac pH P-1 K1
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-Affl)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS -I NO3-N NH4-N Na
MIN 0.22
1.01 5.6
100.o 0.0 8.5 43 148
72.0 16.0
157
73
73
454
454
174
28
3.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr
T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
00209
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim,E
0
50-70
10.30
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/1'im,M
0
120-200
0-20
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
W/V CEC
BS% Ac pH P-1 K I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-01)
Mn-02)
Zu-1
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N Na
MIN 0.09
0.98 8.3
100.0 0.0 9.3 63 131
81.0 11.0
141
51
51
704
704
156
38
5.2
North Carolina Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
- Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Web site: waw.ncagr.gov/aWnomi/
Report No: 27244
Grower•
A B Carter, Inc.
Copies To:
PO Box
518
a k
.JI
Soil
Test Report
Gastonia, NC 28053
Farm:
SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
Received: 02/01/2008
Completed:
03/18/2008
Gaston County
Agronomist Comments
12
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr
T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
- S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
00108
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim,E
0
50-70
60-80
0
0
0 .
0
0
.0 pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/00/fim,M
0
120-200
50-70
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
W/V CRC
BS% Ac pH P-I KI
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-I
SS -I NO3-N
NH4-N Na
MIN 0.36
0.84 6.9
94.0 0.4 7.3 32 124
69.0 16.0
115
66
66
1942
1942
511
36
1.5
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr
T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
00208
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim,E
0
50-70
30-50
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
2040
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
W/V CRC
BS% Ac pM P-I K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N
N714-N Na
MIN 0.18
0.83 7.2
100.0 U. 8.8 50 126
77.0 13.0
146
62
62
686
686
210
42
4.0
North Carol i na Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission

-v
a)
cn
c
E
a)
cn
Q-
m
a)
�OM(0000���
O m d N O O
N N 001'- N N O
h o0 M d M co V N 00
Qi c M Cfl O O M LO d)
O (O O O � N N O) O
M 00 (O V N a0 M �t N
N ('M 0)M 7 M O 00 00 (h
00 O O O Lo N g Lo N
i6 O 00 O O O O, N � LO
N O LO O CO N M LO
N Icr � 0 T CO N o r
N N � N � r
LO N N't co co q co co UO
N N 7 LO O
O O O O O O m 0 00 07
co O g M N LO O co co N
N lf) (O UO N (O LO
0 0-7 W a r- M"t O ti
O O O O O O � N N N
O OO O N N 00 00
CO O CO CON N It �
O O (O O O m O 0 0 0
11 M ONO LO CD r M O O
A co co O N N 00 N co O UO
O (O O m 00 1— LO O N co
NNwoo0o00000
9999 O O O O r
QZLL zL.QzLL

NCD p Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Web Site: www.ncogr.com/agronomi/
.
Report No: 3201
Grower.,
A B Carter, Inc.
Copies To:
Solt
PO Dox 518
Gastonia, NC 28053
Test Report
Farlb: A B CARTER INC
4/23/2009
SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
Gaston County
Agronomist Comments
C - 12, $
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last
Crop
Mo Yr VA
Crop or Year
Lime
N P2O5 K2O
Mg S
Cu
Zu B
Mn
See Note
00109
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E
0
50-76 40-60 0
0 0
0
0 .0
A
12
2nd Crop: Fes/00/ fin,M
0
120-200 30-50 0
0 0
0
0 .0
pH$
12
Test Results
,AM-N
Soul Class AM%
W/V CBC BS% Ac PH P-I K-I
CA Mg%
Mn-1 Mn-A/(1) MO-Al(2) '
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cn-I
S-I
SS I
NO3-N
Na
MIN 0.22
1.01 5.6 100.0 0.0 8.5 43 148
72.0 16.0
157 73 73
454 454
174
28
3.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last
Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N P2O5 K2O
Mg S
Cu
Zu B
Mn
See Note
00209
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim,E
0
50-70 10-30 0
0 0
0
0 .0
pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200 0-20 0
0 0
0
0 .0
pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class MM%
W/V CBC BS% Ac pM RI K I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1 Mn-AI(i) Mil-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
Cn I
S-!
SSI
NO3-N NM4-N
Na
MIN 0.09
0.98 8.3 100.0 0.0 9.3 63 131
81.0 11.0
141 51 51
704 704
156
38
5.2

. �n�� • � ' ; +;. . y � s '��T� `iwur va � t'�ry x : S"- .M.;.-;^:,'S "�"'t Y �"�r,#�c'+.�`l`X 53 e+ }; '�-d --
�,-
Grower:
A B Carter, Inc.
Copies To:
PO Box 518
;
®
Soil
Gastonia, NC 28053
Test Report
Farm:
3/19/2008 SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
Gaston County
Agronomist Comments
C 12, $
�.�»...N sr '. � y.w-•��R' ?- ��:ys ti "y:"-.Y �* ':_ 't. .:..� l'.v�.; ..:.: S r 9.r �,,..-+T '°k L Y'" ,y� .'3, � i
�n.e\{K�V��.,.
;..
':.;s...: � •_, � r3i�� is
S. .:v ,..: ry x .,. .-.r .. »MR�I.Q. s.,.r :-,. ..,.
a:, . r. ...":`s.....w.,.:J.va N..'w'� �=a ,-....c�...ws ...-,�...... s.....a, .3, ...xrr.:»_ ..v.,. ,.,.,cca .rx.. +.;. x.;.:+ ., k-�:.rT�#'o3#.?a «.", M. .v.... ...,:.n..�`R'.
e �.,^L >. ;r;
:ms,F'., .. ._ sr ,-w.a.=, ^';rY."'; w,. n.�k+ �,^'a
r.J?-: r.:, �.�- $ Y
x�+-_'L§,..
k
{
�;
"
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year Lime
.., .rSs. ,�..,. r
P20s K20 Mg S
,... t<': .. a•;
Cu Zn B
Mn
_
See Note «
00108
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,E 0
50-70 60-80 0 0 0
0 0 .0
pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M 0
120-200 50-70 0 0 0
0 0 .0
pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I KI Ca% Mg%
Mn-I Mn-AI(1)Mn-AI(2) Zn-I Zn-AI
Cu-1 S-I
SS -I
NO3-N NH4-N Na
MIN 0.36 0.84 6.9 94.0 0.4 7.3 32 124 69.0 16 0
115 66 66 1942 1942
511 36
1.5
v �y g«n
.,..iec:omm
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year Lime
IV P205 K20 Mg S
Cu Zn B
Mn
See Note
00208
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim,E 0
50-70 30-50 0 0 0
0 0 .0
pH$
12
2nd Crop:' Fes/OG/rim,M 0
120-200 20-40 0 0 0
0 0 .0
pH$
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-I Ca% Mg%
Mn-I Mn-AI(1)Mn-AI(2) Zn-I Zn-AI
Cu-1 S-I
SW
NO3-N NH4-N Na
MIN 0.18 0.83 7.2 100.0 0.0 8.8 50 126 77.0 13.0
146 62 62 686 686
210 42
4.0

w
c\1
CD
w
T
0�
w
Grmw., A. 0. Carter, Inc.
PO Box 518
To.
Gasto* NG 28053
Soil T"t Rport
Farm-
4/2ymG7 SERVING N.C. RESIDEM FOR OVHR 60 YEARS Gaston COWY
AgmaomistCommeatr,
B 4
IF
Samp le No. Lastcrop A10 Yr TIA Crop or Year Line PZ05 K2O IS
Ca
Zia
M See Note
00107 1st Crop: Uzi 0 (1.O1bsNftrogmorEQU1VPER1O00SQM 0
.0
4
.0
TestResults
SOO Gkss IN% WIV GBC BS% Ac PH P-7 K-1 CaYo ft% Awl AWAr(1)Mm-M(2) Zn-1 ZW-N
Cwl
S-1
SW AV3-N Aff4-N NZ
MIN 0.32 0.88 6.5 100.0 0,0 8.8 54 138 76.0 14.0 170 458 458
325
29
3.7
dw S % 4
SaVle No LaaCrop Mo Yr TIA Crop or Year Z&W P205 K20 5
Ca
& 8
Mit See Note
00207 Istcrap: Lim 0 (1.0- lbs Nitrogen or EQUIV PER 1000 SQ FT) 0
.0
4
UdGrop: 0
.0
Test Results
SafWass Mf% WIV M BS% Ac PH P-1 K-1 C496 4% 1Fft-1 A&AF(I)MN-Al(2) Z*-1 ZhAr
ca-1
S-.j
SS-1 NO3-N AU4.N Na
WN 0.22 0.97 4.7 100.0 4.0 9.2 67 131 71.0 15.0 120 133 133
217
20
4.9

It
i
NCDENR
l I .,'/
North Carolina Department of Environment ah�q� tural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
AB Carter, Inc.
Post Office Box 518
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Attention: Ernest W. Sumner
Dear Mr. Sumner:
Coleen H. Sullins
Division of Water Quality
Dee Freeman
Secretary
April 29, 2009
RE: Surface Irrigation Inspection Report
Permit No. WQ0004270
Facility: AB Carter
Gaston County, N.C.
Enclosed you will find the report for the annual compliance inspection that I conducted on April 23, 2009
The facility appears to be in compliance with the referenced permit. The report should be self-
explanatory but should you have any questions, please call me at 704/235-2183 or contact me via email
at peggy.finleyQ—ncdenr.gov (new address).
The addition of the thermal evaporator shows promise for reducing the sodium load in the wastewater
and thereby preserving the extended use of the application fields for disposal.
Sincerely,
L
Peggy Finley
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure: Inspection Report
Cc: Lee Pennington, AB Carter, Inc., POB 518, Gastonia 28053 w/enclosure
MAF/AB Carter/ inspection rpt 4-23-09
One
NorthCarolh
Division of Water Quality / Aquifer Protection Section / Mooresville Regional Office Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] �atllrQ!!l
610 East Center Avenue; Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org u

1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Purdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
A IT 0
4'41 40
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
SURFACE IRRIGATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
Owner: AB Carter, Inc
Permit # WQ0004270
Issuance Date: 6/22/06
Permittee Contact: Ernest W
ORC Name: Lee Pennington
Email address:
Sumner
Cert #S1987583
Backup ORC Name: Charles Parker Cert #S119607
County: Gaston
Project Name: AB Carter
Expiration Date: 5/31/11
Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
Telephone No.: 704/874-2754
Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
Reason for Inspection
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP Facility Start-up
Inspection Summary. (additional comments may be included on attached pa_aes)
In an effort to reduce the concentration of sodium and other industrial constituents in the
waste stream, an Encon thermal evaporator was installed. It began operation on January 15,
2009 and processes approximately 72 gallons of process water per hour. Early monitoring
results are promising.
Cool weather has apparently slowed the greening -up of the grass on the application fields but
coverage appeared adequate.
Records were complete and in good order.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary? yes X no
Inspector Name/Title: Peggy Finley, Environmental Specialist
Tel. No. 704/235-2183 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection: 4/23/09

s
Surface Irrigation
Permit #WQ0004270
Effluent Storage
Page 3
X LAGOON SEPTIC TANK(s) ABOVE GROUND TANK OTHER
Number of months storage Spill control plan on site
Above ground tank Aerated Mixed
In ground tank Aerated Mixed
Storage Lagoon
Check any/all that apply
Y Influent structure (free of obstructions)
N Banks/berms (are there signs of seepage, overtopping, down cutting or erosion)
_N_ Vegetation (is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank
Liner (if visible, is it intact)
Baffles/curtains (in need of repair)
Y Freeboard (>2 feet from overtopping)
—Y—Staff gauge ( clearly marked)
_N_ Evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or laying down/broken)
—N Unusual color,(very black, textile colors)
N Foam (are antifoam agents used)
—N Floating mats (sludge, plants, inorganics)
_N_ Excessive solids buildup (from bottom)
Y Aerators/mixers operational (if present)
Y Effluent structure (free of obstructions, easily accessible)
Residuals -
The solids that are produced by the evaporator are periodically removed from a press and
stored on site until they are sent to EnviroRite in Pennsylvania.
Disposal (final end use)
Y Is the application equipment present and operational?
_N_ Is application equipment in need repair?
.N_ Spray heads calibrated this past year?
Y Are cover crops the type specified in permit?
_N_ Is cover crop in need of improvement?
_N_ Signs of runoff?
_Y_ Signs of ponding?
_N_ Signs of drift?
Y Are buffers adequate?
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
N Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
Are restrictions for use of these areas specified?
Y Is permit being followed?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?
Comments: Some apparent ponding was noted at the northeastern edge of zone /field #

[ARTRON, INC.@
Monroe, NC 28111-0309
394.-XWALKUP AVE.
28110
Evaporation System
Exhausts Clean
Water Vapor
Distillation System
Converts Wastewater
to Clean Water
ENCON EVAPORATORS

High Quality Components and Superior Design
Built-in Modem
Every control panel has a built-in modem
for a non -dedicated phone line. This
modem allows for easy remote program
modifications and/or troubleshooting of
the system by PSI personnel.
PLC Control Panel
NEMA 4 PLC control panel
provides scrolling readout of
wastewater and heated air
temperature, mist pad
pressure, plus alarm and
operating conditions for
maximum operator feedback.
The panel also includes a
built-in cycle timer.
Redundant
Burner Contactors
Each burner has a duty contactor and
a redundant contactor. This design
ensures maximum safety by opening
the redundant contactor in the event
the duty contactor should fail
electrically or mechanically.
Level Sensing
URN' Tuning fork
level probes provide
reliable auto -filling and
shutdown operations even in conditions
of severe foam. The durable level probes
are made of stainless steel for excellent
corrosion resistance. Hastelloy level
probes are available for highly corrosive
applications.
M"TRON, INC-°
P.O. Box 309 Monroe, NC 28111-0309
1394 A WALKUP AVE.
MONROE, NC 28110
PRONE: [phone]

Mist Eliminator System
The stainless mesh filter Is
designed for easy removal
from its compression fit housing.
The system is monitored for
contaminant loading and
airflow, which is interfaced to
the control panel for maxi-
mum operator feedback.
Blower System
1725 RPM, TEFC Motor with
Class B insulation rated
for high temperatures.
Extremely quiet operation
and as much as three times
the longevity of 3450 RPM
motors. Heavy gauge
aluminum blower provides
durability and longevity.
Forced Draft Burner
Each fuel heated system
consists of a burner with:
Honeywell controls; pressure
gauge and gas volume meter
for monitoring gas inlet
conditions; airflow detection
and lockout; spark ignition;
redundant main, valve and
burner contactors for maxi-
mum safety. FM gas trains and
gas flow transmitters are
standard on the larger
systems. The stainless steel
burner protection shroud is
mounted on a track hanger
for ease of removal and
reattachment. Natural gas,
Propane, Dual Fuel, OII, Diesel,
Waste Oil and Low NO,
burners are available.
Cleanout Flange
Large six inch cleanout with flange cover
and a 1 Il? NPT fitting for pump connection
and ease of residue removal.
1/
Al"TRON, INC. °
P.O. Box 309 Monroe, NC 28111-0309
1394 A WALKUP AVE.
MONROE, NC 28110
PHONE: [phone]

TRAVELER SHOP I
r
N. ooac
WASTE
TREATMENT
BLDG
FlELD
LAB
EVAPOR4TOR SYSTEM
ROLL —OFF
F006
CANTEEN MACHINE SHOP
FINE WIRE � � SCREW MACHINE
PLATING
L iNSPEcnorl
T—T _ MOLDING ILL DEVICE TOOL ROOM ASSEMBLY
INSPECTION SHIPPING
j� PRESS ROOM
R&D TUMBLING I � � II-
-
BELT TAPE DYELLLM=1J
L ITITI
�
L
ACME
AIR
S. WAREHOUSE
A. B. CARTER, INC.
4801 YORK HWY
GASTONIA, NC

Q
Iz
M C,,�) N O 0
��V!! r N r N O t`
r r
00 r C7 C'? C'7
r CO CD O M
O co O CD NT I`
( I-- Cf) 0) r 00
00 CD O O Lo N
Or N O LO � M
y r N V r L r
N r �—
U.)tir--�"tcMti
L OOOCnmdj
00 O V 00 I-- U')
/ r I\ CC) CD IX) I—
tl0 O N 00 0O I-
O O r O r o0
O O O O O O
0O0 co co
0) m 000 N N
O O CD O O m
co co in N (D I� N
l"t N , V r
i(„
00 O I- 00
N CD m U .00 I-
r r r r
I\ Il- 00 00 00 CA
O O O O O O
O � = O
Q Z LL Q Z LL

4801 York Hwy, Gastonia, Gaston, North Carolina 28052 - Google Maps Page 1 of 1
Address 4801 York Hwy Get Google Maps on your phone
` M Gastonia, NC 28052 / `? Text the word "GMAPS"to 46645 3
Maps
http://maps.google. com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&h1=en&q=4801 +York+Hwy,+Gastonia,+... 4/23/2009

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Oo
PY
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
. Division of Water Quality
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
November 5, 2007
AB Carter, Inc.
Post Office Box 518
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-0518
Attention: Lee Pennington
RE: Acknowledgement of Receipt
Action Plan for Spray Irrigation Field
Non -discharge Permit No. WQ0004270
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Pennington:
Your report was received in this office on October 19, 2007. 1 concur with your straategies to reduce the
concentration of salts in the waste stream as well as renovation of the application field. Sampling did not
indicate an adverse effect on the ground water in the vicinity of the field, although an increased .
concentration of sodium was noted in MW-20 down gradient of the lagoon. .
Please continue to include sodium, calcium and magnesium in the analysis of groundwater samples in
February and August. Please follow Mark Blevins recommendations for soil and foliar analysis. Thank
you for your.prompt attention to this matter. I will plan an inspection for late in the spring of 2008.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 704/235-2183.
Sincerely,
Peggy Finley
Environmental Specialist
MAF/AB Carter ack 11-5-07
Division of Water Quality / Aquifer Protection Section / Mooresville Regional Office Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Naoc
rhCarolina
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 Internet: 1nrvvw.ncwaterauality.orp N14tu''r,71if

October16, 2007
Ms Peggy Finley, Environmental Specialist
Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office
610 E. Center Ave. Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 25115
Dear Ms. Finley:
p ECE9W
OCT 11 2007
NC DENR MRO
DWQ -Aquifer Protection
Enclosed in these reports are the action plans that will be taken to address the high
pH and alkaline content of the lagoon and to the sprayfield.
1. The two alkaline wastestreams will be redirected to our metals treatment facility
upon Written Authorization to Construct from the City of Gastonia approval.
Confirmation from the City of Gastonia and the schematics on the redirected
flow are included in these reports.
2. Mark Blevins from the NC Cooperative Extension, Gaston County Center
visited our sight in early October and gave us several recommendations. We
plan to overseed with fescue by the end of October and do more soil testing to
monitor the improvements on the field.
3. The test results for sodium, calcium and magnesium on monitoring wells
MW-19, MW-20 and MW-21 were sampled on August 7,2007. Results are
included in the reports.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed reports, please feel free to give
me a call at [phone]
Sincerely,
Lee Pennington
Environmental & Finishing Manager
01MAr
ISO 9001:2000 CERT # 004004
P.O. Box 518, Gastonia, NC 28053-0518 USA; Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

S -
' c �
GAS ONIA
i i S OCT 1i 2007
P.O. BOX 1748
NC DE
0a5tvnia, -eurtb Carolina 28053-174S L-mg,:A�,u!
WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
October 10, 2007
Ms Peggy Finley, Environmental Specialist
Aquifer Protection Section
Mooresville Regional Office
610 E. Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Ms. Finley:
The City of Gastonia Pretreatment Program confirms awareness of A.B. Carter's plans to introduce
two wastestreams to their current pretreatment system with a total increase of approximately 600 gpd.
Written Authorization to Construct from the City of Gastonia Pretreatment Program is required prior
to implementation of these plans but no problems are anticipated. The wastewaters from the
vibratory and tumbling departments are currently discharged with the facility's domestic flow, which
does not enter the City's sanitary sewer system. The user's proposal will relocate those alkaline
process wastestreams to be treated with other process flows, thus improving the quality of the
domestic flow that is spray irrigated. Such separation will also simplify any future request that the
City accept A.B. Carter's domestic flow, enabling domestic sewer connection subsequent to the
process pretreatment and monitoring location.
A.B. Carter has stated that no change in their effluent results is expected to occur as a result of this
project. City Pretreatment staff has determined that the addition of 600 gpd process water will not
affect the combined wastestream formula ratio and that no changes are needed at this time to SIU
Permit No. 1049.
If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me at 704-866-6058 or email
nancyni2wcityofgastonia.com.
Sincerely,
CITY OF GASTONIA
Nancy R. Matherly
Industrial Chemist
Pc: Lee Pennington, A.B. Carter
David Shellenbarger, Asst. Manager of Compliance WWTD
Dana Folley, NCDWQ / PERCS Unit
A n nn
Anwdi QuafEb Asaosso-
ISO 14001 Certified
Pure andCCean for our gieCds and Streams
ANSI • RAB
EMS

TRAVELER SHOP II
r
N. DOCK
FINE WIRE
1L
WASTE
TREATMENT
BLDG
FlELD
LAB
TO PRETREATMENT
PLATING
ROLL -OFF
F006
II
CANTEEN MACHINE SHOP
SCREW MACHINE
�n I , INSPECTON L
=� ASSEMBLY
MOLDING ILL DEVICE TOOL ROOM
P�
INSPECTION SHIPPING
PRESS ROOM
�W
R&D TUMBLING I 14 '
BELT TAPE DYELLLI I EiJ
ITITI
.-
ACME
AIR
COMPR.
S. WAREHOUSE
A. B. CARTER, INC.
4801 YORK HWY
GASTO N I A, NC

October 9, 2007
A. B. Carter, Incorporated
Attn: Lee Pennington,
Environmental and Finishing Manager
PO Box 518
Gastonia, NC 28053
Mr� Pennington
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
Gaston County Center
P.O. Box 1578
Gastonia, NC 28053-1578
704-922-0301 (phone)/ 704-922-2140 (fax)
Visiting your site on October 4t" was helpful to gain some more insight
into the situation we discussed in person at my office and over the
phone. The pH and Na values on your recent soil test indicate the
potential for serious problems on your site, such as the reduced ability
to sustain plant life on your application site. The vegetation is still
green and living, so this provides some hope for improvement.
My recommendation is to apply the wastewater to a different site in
order to manage the current site for remediation. You communicated
the constraints of the property, being such that another application
site is not available.
In this case, reducing the pH of the wastewater to the minimum
allowed by your domestic wastewater application regulations and
guidelines should stop the pH from raising any higher, and may begin
to allow the pH to lower naturally and may also leech out some of the
excess Na from the soil.
Please also regularly inspect the irrigation system for any malfunctions
or necessary repairs as some vegetation near the irrigation heads
displayed different characteristics than vegetation in the rest of the
application field.
I also suggest overseeding the application site with a cool season
grass, such as Fescue, in October. The application field is mostly
Bermudagrass at this point, which will enter dormancy after the first
killing frost. Without actively growing vegetation, the application field
cannot work as designed through the winter. I am glad to discuss the
details of re-establishing your desired vegetation on the application
site.
North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T University commit themselves to positive action to secure equal opportunity regardless of
race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. In addition, the two Universities welcome all persons without regard to sexual
orientation. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T State University, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.

m-
Land application of sulfur is common in some parts of the United
States in order to lower the pH of soil. This is an option for your site;
however, I have no quantitative suggestion for application.
In stead, I recommend quarterly soil testing to analyze the changes
you are making to your system. If the pH is lowered naturally, there
may be no need to reduce it chemically if the vegetation remains
healthy and viable as a treatment resource. I also recommend periodic
foliar analysis to make sure the uptake of applied nutrients is occurring
properly.
Overall, I am pleasantly surprised with the quality of vegetation on
your application site, considering the soil and water conditions. The
potential for improvement is great and is highly likely with the
relatively simple recommendations above.
Sincerely,
Mar Blevins, Horticulture Agent
NC Cooperative Extension, Gaston County Center
cc: Peggy Finley, Division of Water Quality, NC DENR

5540 Centerview Drive
Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27606
919.828.3150 PHONE
919.828.1977 Fax
www.TRCsolutions.com
September 12, 2007
NC DENR - Division of Water Quality
Groundwater Section
Permits and Compliance Unit
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Re: A.B. Carter, Inc., Permit #WQ0004270, Semi -Annual Sampling Results
TRC Project Number 153010-0010
To Whom It May Concern:
Enclosed are the results for the August 2007 sampling and analysis conducted at the
above -referenced facility. The three wells designated MW-19, MW-20 and MW-21 were
sampled on August 7, 2007. These three wells are to be sampled semi-annually in
compliance with NC DENR - Division of Water Quality permit # WQ004270.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please feel free to give us a call
at [phone].
Sincerely,
; �z , �/"/
Steven W. Voshell
Environmental Scientist
Leonard C. Moretz, L.G.
Environmental Department Manager
Cc: Mr. Ernest Sumner — A.B. Carter, Inc.
TRC File # 153010

GW-59A COMPLIANCE REPORT FORM Permit # WQ004270
(Submit one each monitoring period with GW-59 forms.)
1 Enter date monitoring results were due. (9/30/07) Will this monitoring report (GW-59 and YES
GW-59A) be submitted after the established due date?
2 Was any required information missing on the GW-59 report forms? YES
INO
IF the answer to question 1 or 2 is "YES", list in the space provided below the well identification
number(s) and
explain the problems encountered in obtaining the required information.
3 Are any of the monitor wells in need of repair or maintenance (damaged casing, unlocked or missing YES
cap, missing identification plate, area overgrown, etc.)? If the answer is "Yes", contact the Regional
Officefor guidance.
4 Are any monitored constituents equal to or above the established standards? E NO
If the answer to question 4 is "NO", skip to section 8.
If the answer to question 4 is "YES" list the affected wells individually with constituent(s) and
concentration(s) exceeding standards in the space provided below:
MW-19: pH — 5.49
MW-20: pH — 5.37
15 I For the constituents identified in question 4 above, have standards been exceeded E NO
previously for the same constituent(s) in the same well(s) in the last two years?
If the answer to question 5 is "NO", skip to section 8.
If the answer to question 5 is "YES", list in the space provided below, each well with
constituent(s) exceeding standards, concentration(s) reported, and sample collection date for each
occurrence (for the last two years).
MW-19 MW-20 MW-21
8/7/07: pH — 5.49 8/7/07: pH — 5.37
2/13/07: pH — 6.31 2/13/07: pH — 5.60. 2/13/07: pH — 5.95
8/8/06: pH — 4.59 8/8/06: pH — 4.49 8/8106: pH — 4.10
3/14/06: pH — 5.50 3/14/06: pH — 5.70 3/14106: pH _ 5.08
8/23/05: pH — 5.09 8/23/05: pH — 4.83 8/23/05: pH — 4.99
Are the monitoring wells listed in section 5 located at or beyond the review boundary?
NO
E
If the answer is "YES", a groundwater quality problem may be occurring. CONTACT THE
REGIONAL OFFICE IMMEDIATELY FOR GUIDANCE. If the answer is "NO", monitoring wells
may be improperly located; contact the Regional Office.
7
Is the permittee implementing previously approved actions required by the Division
YES
involving this groundwater quality problem?
.
If the answer to question 7 is "YES", describe those actions in the space provided below.
If the answer to question 7 is "NO", contact the Regional Office within 90 days• an evaluation
may be required to determine the impact the waste disposal system is having at the review
and compliance boundaries surrounding this facility Failure to do so may subiect the
permittee to a Notice of Violation, fines and/or penalties
The low pH measured in groundwater has been deemed naturally occurring and requires no
corrective action.
g
The person completing this portion (GW-59A) of the monitoring report should sign below
and submit this form with GW-59 forms for required wells to the address provided at the top
of the current GW-59 form.
Ilra�collge ththe abat�cfomhzin waszcv;tluaoifi and tT�totmatroti submitted
�tsroti�Ynpliarice[Repo f
1t$j>strumplvt'ib thssa.m,nowlbcigq
-07
Signature of Permittee (or Authorized Agent) Date

SUBMIT FORM ON YELLOW PAPER ONLY
OROUNENVATER QUALITY MONITORING
COMPLIANCE REPORT FORM
FACILITY INFORMATION Please Print Clearly or Type
Facility Name: A. B. Carter Inc.
Permit Name (if different):
Facility Address: Hwy 321 South
Gastonia NC 28053 County Gaston
City State - Zip
Contact Person: Ernest Sumner Telephone: [phone]
Well Location/ site Name: Sprayfield / A.B. Carter No. of Wells to be Sampled: 3
frompermit)
Well Identification Number (from Permit) MW-19 For Groundwater Treatment Systems
Well Depth:: 50.0 ft. Well Diameter: 2 _ in. Check One Influent (98)
Screened Interval: 40 ft. to 50 ft �\
Depth to Water Level: 42.75 ft. below measuring point. LP Effluent (99)
Measuring Point (M.P.) is: 2.5 ft above land surface. Relative M.P. Elevation in ft.: 737.59
Gallons of water pumped/bailed before sampling: 3.5 Date sample collected: " 8/7/07
Field analysis: pH 5.49 Specific Conductance 382 uMhos
Temp. 20.89 °C Odor None Appearance slightly silty — Turbidity — 6.89 NTU
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY DIVISION, GROUNDWATER SECTION
1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1636 PHONE: [phone]
PERMIT #: W0004270 EXPIRATION DATE:
Non -Discharge UIC
NPDES
TYPE OF PERMITTED OPERATION BEING MONITORED
Lagoon Remediation: Infiltration Gallery
X Spray Field Remediation:
Rotary Distributor Land Application of Sludge
Other:
NOTE: Values should reflect dissolved and
Colloidal concentrations.
Date sample analyzed: 8/7/07 — 8/13/07
Laboratory Name: Prism Laboratories Inc.
Certification No. 402
PARAMETERS (Samples for metals were collected unfiltered YES NO and field acidified YES NO
CO
D
Coliform: MF. Fecal
<50
mg/I
/100ml
Nitrite (NO2) as N
Nitrate (NO3) as N 4.1
mg/I
<2.0 CFU
Coliform: MF Total
(Note: Use MPN method for highly turbid samples)
/100ml
Phosphorus: Total as P
mg/I
mg/I
Dissolved Solids: Total
190
mg/I
Orthophosphate
m /I
g
PH (when analyzed)
units
Al - Aluminum
mg/I
TOC
6.4
mg/1
Ba -Barium
Ca - Calcium 19
mg/I
Chloride
Arsenic
27
mg/1
Cd - Cadmium
mg/I
mg/I
Grease and Oils
mg/I
mg/I
Chromium: Total
mg/I
Phenol
mg/I
Cu -Copper
mg/I
Sulfate
68
mg/I
Fe -Iron
Hg - Mercury
mg/I
Specific Conductance
Total Ammonia
uMhos
K -Potassium
m g/I
mg/I
<0,1
TKN as N
mg/I
mg/I
M9 -Magnesium 6.3
mg/I
Mn - Manganese
mg/I
G W-59
Rev. 03/2000
Ni — Nickel mg/I
Pb - Lead mg/1
Zn Zinc mg/I
Ammonia Nitrogen mg/I
Other (Specify Compounds and Concentration Units)
Na - Sodium 25 ma/L
ORGANICS: (GC, GC/MS, HPLC)
(Specify test and method #. Attach lab report.)
Report Attached? Yes (0) No _
method # _
method # _
method # _
Leonard C. Moretz Manager — Environmental Department - TRC
Permittee 4AuthorizVpAg��lat Na and Title —Please print or type
Signature of Permittee (or Au
Agent)
(0)

SUBMIT FORM ON YELLOW PAPER ONLY
UROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING
COMPLIANCE REPORT FORM
FACILITY INFORMATION Please Print Clearly or Type
Facility Name: A. B. Carter Inc.
Permit Name (if different):
Facility Address: _ Hwy 321 South
Gastonia NC 28053 County Gaston
City state LP
Contact Person: Ernest Sumner Telephone: [phone]
Well Location/ site Name: Sprayfield / A.B. Carter No. of Wells to be Sampled: 3
foam artnit
Well Identification Number (from Permit) MW-20 For Groundwater Treatment Systems
Well Depth:: 52.0 ft. Well Diameterf , 2 in. Check OneEp Influent (98)
Screened Interval: no data ft. to no data ft
Depth to Water Level: 48.99 ft. below measuring point.
Effluent (99)
Measuring Point (M.P.) is: 2.5 ft above land surface. Relative M.P. Elevation in ft.: no data
Gallons of water pumped/bailed before sampling: 1.5 Date sample collected: 8/7/07
Field analysis: pH 5.37 , Specific Conductance 805 uMhos
Temp. 20.48 °C Odor None Appearance slightly silty — Turbidity — 6.78
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY DIVISION, GROUNDWATER SECTION
1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1636 PHONE: [phone]
ERMIT #: W0004270
on -Discharge
PDES
EXPIRATION DATE:
UIC
= PERMITTED OPERATION BEING MONITORED
Lagoon Remediation: Infiltration Gallery
Spray Field Remediation:
Rotary Distributor Land Application of Sludge
Other:
NOTE: Values should reflect dissolved and
Colloidal concentrations.
Date sample analyzed: 8/7/07 — 8/13/07
Laboratory Name: Prism Laboratories Inc.
Certification No. 402
PARAMETERS (Samples for metals were collected unfiltered YES NO and field acidified YES NO
COD
Coliform: MF Fecal
<50
mg/I
/100ml
Nitrite (NO2) as N
Nitrate (NO3) as N 8.1
mg /I
m/I
g
<2.0 CFU
Coliform: MF Total
/100m1
Phosphorus: Total as P
mg/I
(Note: Use MPN method for highly turbid samples)
Dissolved
Orthophosphate
m /I
Solids: Total
PH
570
mg/I
Al - Aluminum
g
mg/I
(when analyzed)
TOC
units
Ba -Barium
mg/I
Chloride
9•2
mg/I
mg/I
Ca - Calcium 9.2
mg/I
110
Arsenic
mg/1
Cd - Cadmium
mg/I
Grease and Oils
m9/1
Chromium: Total
mg/I
Phenol
mg/I
Cu - Copper
mg/I
Sulfate
200
mg/I
Fe - Iron
Hg - Mercury
mg/I
Specific Conductance
uMhos
K - Potassium
m /I
g
Total Ammonia
TKN as N
0.062 (estimated)
m g /j
Mg -Magnesium 4.2
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
Mn -Manganese
mg/I
Ni — Nickel
mg/I
Pb -.Lead
mg/I
Zn Zinc
mg/I
Ammonia Nitrogen
mg/I
Other (Specify Compounds and Concentration Units)
NA — Sodium 160 ma/L
ORGANICS: (GC, GC/MS, HPLC)
(Specify test and method #. Attach lab report.)
Report Attached? Yes (0) No (0)
: method # =
: method # =
Leonard C. Moretz Manager — Environmental Department - TRC Environmental Co oration
GW-59 Permittee (or Authorized Agent) Name and Title — Please print or type
Rev. 03/2000
Signature of Perm ittee (or Authorized gent)

SUBMIT FORM ON YELLOW PAPER ONLY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING
COMPLIANCE REPORT FORM
FACILITY INFORMATION Please Print Clearly or Type
Facility Name: A. B. Carter Inc.
Permit Name (if different):
Facility Address: Hwy 321 South
Gastonia NC 28053 County Gaston
City State Zip
Contact Person: Ernest Sumner Telephone: [phone]
Well Location/ site Name: SDravfield / A.B. Carter No. of Wells to be Sampled: 3
from errnit
Well Identification Number (from Permit) MW-21 For Groundwater Treatment Systems
Well Depth:: 50.0 ft. Well Diameter: 2 in.
Screened Interval: 40 ft. to 50 ft �— Check One Influent (98)
Depth to Water Level: 45.19 ft. below measuring point. Effluent (99)
Measuring Point (M.P.) is: � 2.5 ft above land surface. Relative M.P. Elevation in ft.: 754.91
Gallons of water pumped/balled before sampling: 2.0 Date sample collected: 8/7/07
Field analysis: pH 7.45 Specific Conductance 171 uMhos
Temp. 20.74 °C Odor None Appearance slightly silty — Turbidity — Tr; N
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY DIVISION, GROUNDWATER SECTION
1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1636 PHONE: [phone]
RMIT #: WQ004270
n-Discharge
DES
EXPIRATION DATE:
UIC
F PERMITTED OPERATION BEING MONITORED
Lagoon Remediation: Infiltration Gallery
Spray Field Remediation:
Rotary Distributor Other: Land Application of Sludge
NOTE: Values should reflect dissolved and
Colloidal concentrations.
Date sample analyzed: 8/7/07 — 8/13/07
Laboratory Name: Prism Laboratories Inc.
Certification No. 402
r-ARAr1r)n ETERs (Samples for metals were collected unfiltered YES NO and field acidified YES
COD NO
Coliform: MF Fecal
<50
<2.0 CFU
mg/I
/100ml
Nitrite (NO2) as N
Nitrate (NO3) as N 1.1
mg/I
Coliform: MF Total.
(Note: Use MPN method for highly turbid samples)
/100ml
Phosphorus: Total as P
m /1
g
mg/I
Dissolved Solids: Total
54
Orthophosphate
mg/I
PH (when analyzed)
Units
Al -Aluminum
mg/I
TOC
5.9
mg/I
Ba -Barium
Ca - Calcium
mg/I
Chloride
Arsenic
14
m9/I
3.9
Cd - Cadmium
mg/I
mg/I
Grease and Oils
mg/I
mg/I
Chromium: Total
mg/I
Phenol
mg/I
Cu -Copper
mg/I
Sulfate
Specific Conductance
12
mg/I
Fe -Iron
Hg _Mercury
mg/I
mg/I
Total Ammonia
<0.1
uMhos
mg/I
K - Potassium
mg/I
TKN as N
mg/I
M9 - Magnesium 1.6
mg/I
Mn - Manganese
mg/I
Ni - Nickel mg/I
Pb - Lead mg/I
Zn Zinc mg/I
Ammonia Nitrogen mg/I
Other (Specify Compounds and Concentration Units)
Na - Sodium 4 7 m-/L
ORGANICS: (GC, GC/MS, HPLC)
(Specify test and method #. Attach lab report.)
Report Attached? Yes (0) No (0)
method # _
methnd * _
Leonard C. Moretz Manager — Environmental Department - TRC Environmental Corporation
GW-59 Perm itt e (or Author' e Alit Name and Title - Please print or type
Rev. 03/2000 Signature of Permlttee (or Authonzed Agent)

Ground Water Elevation Data, A.B. Carter, Inc., Gastonia, NC
rge
am. P e-
le at
S Jim O)le Time
BG- I MW-21
754.91
49.00
BG-2/MW-19
737.59
50.00
c)-+
11120
MW-6
725.57
MW-7
723.57
66.91
49
1s.0 f3
'$ N lo-4
q S'
MW-7A
724.14
40.39
1.33
•11
A
-/T"
MW-8
717.37
67.30
0 -j;y
MW-8A
719.76
45.05
3 Z. --b
5'
MW-9
718.13
44.00
13
s-'-+ct
)0.'10
MW-9A
718.72
35.00
O'Sb
9 , q.!Sr
MW-11
723.77
70.00
35,0
q.Z5 P
'g
MW-1 IA
724.24
40.00
3S,on
Z. -10
-Ar
1.29 y
sic) T
-FF
MW-12
726.95
740
'3� (,q
1*-+. 9
2-0. 0 f,
fly ia ,1-
16: IS
MW-12A
728.15
40.00
3ffija
-
-
-
-
MW-16R
707.38
37.50
Z-16 15:0 1
T. 2-9
5.5 9
'g I g I C),)r
MW-16A
706.37
72.91
Zs, 1 14
7-7-53
ZS-Q - r
21%/o-q-
MW-17
713.21
50.00
35. C>4
17-
1010
MW-18
718.65
50.00
MW-20
52.00
0 S*S-
MW-22
706.38
42.00
C, S
P
146SO
PM-1
721.38
40.00
y S
19
PM-2
710.09
55.00
2-5. -?3
fg La
PM-3
PM-4
719.32
720.74
40.00
35.00
q
SZ -31
i Zl,
q.0
i . $
g-T-9
lol
13 t c5
PZ-1
717.55
31.5(3
PZ-2
715.91
RW-10
719.22
RW-13
722.69
!T 3. 1b
RW-14
RW-15
721.58
714.13
3 q 3
-T7 i
Groundwater and top of casing elevation measured relative to an assumed site datum.
TOC = top of casing
DTW = depth to water
- KcP-00i
K

Project: Project No.: Date/Time: Sheet
1*-- TRC AB Carter 163010
Groundwater TRC Personnel:
Sampling Data Record Steven Voshell
Well Identification: MW — (-ci $
WELL INTEGRITY_ I Iw, roa
YES NO Casing Stick-up ft. Depth 5-0 ft. top of casing historical
Protect Casing Secure (from ground)
Concrete Collar Intact X
Stick-upRiser Water _
PVC Stick-up Intact (from ground) ft.Depth g225 fL
Well Cap Present
Security Lock Present II��77II 16 gal/ft (2 in.)
WELL DIAMETER F1 2 inch Height of C! .._va ,.:_
4 inch
6 Inch
WELL MATERIAL .
EJ
PVC SS
Water Column 1.z5 ft. x yam„ `' —.1
1.5 gallft (6 in.)
_ gal/ft (_ in.)
Volume of Water in Well = 1.11- gallon(s)
3 •S Total gallons
[Vol. = r2 h(0.163)] purged
Purge Start Time
--
Pump Depth
--
Tubing Depth
—
FIELD WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Time
I lab
Temp. (C)
Zp,gq
Conduct. (mSlcm)
DO (mg/1)
pH (Std. Units)
ORP (mV)
Turbidity (NTU)
jo , $ 9.
Grundfos (Hz)
Flow (ml/min)
Depth To Water (ft)
Analytical Parameter
Filtered (YIN)
Preservation
Volume
Time Collected
Sample #
COD/Ammonia
N
H2SO4
500 mL
((;Zd
L3 _ d
Sulfate/Chloride/Nitrate
N
None
600 mL
Fecal Coliform
N
Na2S203
100 mL
TDS
N
none
275 mL
TOC
N
HCI
40 mL X 3
Metals
N
HNO3
500 mL
Pump Type Purge Sample Description of Sampling Equipment and Flow Rate:
Peristaltic Pump
Submersible Pump
Diaphragm Pump
Bailer
L:lenvironiVormsuowflowrecord.ppt Signed: Rev 7 Oct 2002

C� TRC
Groundwater
Sampling Data Record
Project:. Project No.:
AB Carter 153010
Date/Time:
g 0 .
Sheet
TRC Personnel:
Steven Voshell
Well Identification: MQ --ZO
WELL INTEGRITY
.
YES No
Protect Casing Secure
Concrete Collar Intact x
— —
PVC Stick-up Intact
Well Cap Present
Security Lock Present
Protective
Casing Stick-up ft
(from ground)
Riser Stick-up
(from ground) ft,
WELL DIAMETER 2 inch
4 inch
6 inch
WELL MATERIAL
® ❑ ❑
PVC SS _
Well top of riser ®measured
Depth 5Z ft. top of casing historical
Water
Depth 48.E ft.
16 gaUft (2 in.)
Height of
Water Column 3.01 ft..65 gal/ft (4 in.)
x 1.5 gaUft (6 in.)
_ gaUft (_in.)
Volume of Water in Well = 0. yB gallon(s)
_
I Total gallons
[Vol. = r2 h(0.163)] purged
Purge Start Time
Pump Depth
—
Tubing Depth
--
FIELD WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Time
10 ;SS
Temp. (C)
20_gJ?
Conduct (mS/cm)
0,zo�
DO (mg/I)
},$S
pH (Std. Units)
ORP (mV)
Turbidity(NTU)
Grundfos (Hz)
Flow (ml/min)
Depth To Water (ft)
Analytical Parameter
Filtered (YIN)
Preservation
Volume
Time Collected
Sample #
COD/Ammonia
N
H2SO4
500 mL
I Q
M i J- 2c9
Sulfate/Chloride/Nitrate
N
None
500 mL
Fecal Coliform
N
Na2S203
100 mL
TDS
N
none
275 mL
TOC
N
HCI
40 mL X 3
Metals
N "
HNO3
500 mL"
Pump Type Purge Sample Description of Sampling Equipment and Flow Rate:
Peristaltic Pump
Submersible Pump
Diaphragm Pump
Bailer
�.�ivn Vunw�ivauvYnipW��,'tznp.NPL Signed:
Rev: 7 Oct 2002

Project: Project No.: Date/Time: Sheet
T R C AB Carter 153010 -J
Groundwater TRC Personnel:
Sampling Data Record Steven Voshell
Well Identification: MW_Zt
WELL INTEGRITY 1 0...0s .:.. , 1 ..,_., II—1 ---
rrcn avM an uacmcaau�ev
YES NO Casing Stick-up ft Depth N4 ft .H top of cash
Protect. Casing Secure (from ground) 9 historical
Concrete Collar Intact XWater
PVC Stick-up Intact Riser Stick-up De th +IS.Y
(from ground) ft p ft.
Well Cap Present
Security Lock Present 16 gal/ft (2 in.)
WELL DIAMETER 2 inch Heinht of P1 _ _ ,. -_ .
4 inch Water
6 inch
Volume
WELL MATERIAL
®
PVC SS [Vol.
Column 311 ft. x VU y4111 1y 191.1
1.5 gallft (6 in.)
_ gal/ft•(_ in.)
of Water in Well = 0,61 gallon(s)
Z � O Total gallons
= r2 h(0.163)] purged
Purge Start Time
- —
Pump Depth
—
Tubing Depth
--
FIELD WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Time
10 : Zt
Temp. (C)
26.4 (
Conduct (mS/cm)
0 .1 -•1
DO (mg/1)
11.32
pH (Std. Units),+{
j
ORP (mV)
?36.
Turbidity (NTU)
• ,$
Grundfos (Hz)
Flow (ml/min)
Depth To Water (ft)
Analytical Parameter
Filtered (Y/N)
Preservation
Volume
Time Collected
Sample #
COD/Ammonia
N
H2SO4
600 mL
1 p . Z. b
Ao - 2-1
Sulfate/Chloride/Nitrate
N
None
600 mL
Fecal Coliform
N
Na2S203
100 mL
TDS
N
none
275 mL
TOC
N
HCI
40 mL X 3
of
Metals
N
HNO3
500 mL
j3C�
Pump Type Purge Sample Description of Sampling Equipment and Flow Rate:
Peristaltic Pump P� V U i
Submersible Pump
Diaphragm Pump
Bailer
L:IenvironllfonnsUowflowrecord.ppt Signed:
Rev: 7 Oct 2002

TRC
Project:
Project No.:
Date/Time:
AB Carter
153010
Sheet
Groundwater
TRC Personnel:
Sampling Data Record
Steven Voshell
Well Identification:
WELL INTEGRITY
YES No
Protect. Casing Secure
Protective
Casing Stick-up
(from ground)
ft.
Well top of riser ❑ measured
Depth ft• to of casin
p 9 historical
Concrete Collar Intact
PVC Stick-up Intact
Riser Stick-u
Water
Well Cap Present
(from ground)
Depth fL
_
Security Lock Present
WELL DIAMETER
H
WELL MATERIAL
❑ ❑
PVC SS
2 inch
4 inch
6 inch
_
Height
Water Column ft. x
_
Volume of Water In Well =
[Vol. = r2 h(0.163)]
16 gal/ft (2 in.)
.65 gal/ft (4 in.)
1.5 gal/ft (6 in.)
_ gal/ft L in.)
gallon(s)
Total gallons
purged
Purge Start Time
Pump Depth
Tubing Depth
FIELD WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Time
Temp. (C)
Conduct. (mS/cm)
DO (mg/1)
pH (Std. Units)
ARP f-VA
Turbidity (NTU)
Grundfos (Hz)
Flow (ml/min)
Depth To Water (ft)
Analytical Parameter
Filtered (Y/N)
Preservation
Volume
Time Collected
Sample #
COD/Ammonia
N
H2SO4
500 mL
Sulfate/Chloride/Nitrate
N
None
500 mL
Fecal Coliform
N
Na2S203
100 mL
TDS
N
none
276 mL
TOC
N
HCI
40 mL X 3
Metals
N
HNO3
500 mL
Pump Type
Peristaltic Pump
Submersible Pump
Diaphragm Pump
Bailer
Purge
Sample Description of Sampling Equipment and Flow Rate:
L\environlforrnsVowflowrecord.ppl
Signed:
Rev: 7 Oct 2002

pi
„?
PRISM
:�_ LABORATORIES, INC.
-""- _ --
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD'
PAGE ! OF GUOTE 8 TG ENSURE PROPER BILLING:
LAB USE ONLY
YES NO N/A
Samples INTACT upon arrival?
I
Full Service Analytical & Environmental Solutions
N", ('�' A +. A
project Name: c _ -
Received ON WEr ICE? Temp
449 5pringbrook Road • P.O. Box 240543 • Charlotte, NC 282240543
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Short Hold Analysis: (1(es� (No) UST Project: (Yes) (._.�-JNo
PROPER PRESERVATIVES indicated?
Client Company Name: i-
*Please ATTACH any proJBct specific reporting (QC LEVEL 111111 IV)
Received WITHIN IOLDiNG:TIME$? _
Report To/Contact Name:
p w t1n.+va
L-<• �
provisions and/or QC Requirements
CUSTODY SEALS INTACT? —
_
r:
To: :' . �.i.,..
VOLATILESTec'd W/OUT HEADSPACE? —
Reporting Address: _ 1' itocleVOice
Address:
PROPER,CONTAINERS used?: _
fa •:. ; „ice i�J C
rnone: -.a il-ax L,Yes) (Nod)
Email (?Ices) (No) Email Address k,­r-4_.1 ; (,-:_A.,<
Purchase Order No./Billing Reference
TO BE FILLED IN BY CLIENT/SAMPLING PERSONNEL
EDD Type: PDF= Excel - Other
requested Due Date ❑ 1 Day ❑ 2 Days • O 3 Days ❑ 4 Days ❑ 5 Days
Certification: NELAC USACE
FL NC
-
Working Days" ❑ 6-9 Days O'Standard 10 days ❑ Rush Work Must Be
Site Location Name: �- v, i _: k -, r
Pre -Approved
Samples received after 15:00 will be processed next business day.
SC — OTHER
N/A
Site Location Physical Address: (: < <=: -• .%. N)
C Turnaround time Is based on business dhays, excluding weekends and holidays.
Water Chlorinated: YES_ NO
(SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS & CONDITIONS REGARDING SERVICES
RENDERED BY PRISM LABORATORIES, INC. TO CLIENT)
Sample Iced Upon
p p Collection: YES
✓ NO _
CLIENT
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
DATE
COLL CTED
TIME
COLLECTED
MILITARY
MATRIX
(SOIL,
WATER OR
SAMPLE CONTAINER -
"tpRESERVA-
TIVES
ANALYSES REQUESTED ,f.
�_ f
, �' ..-- ►' .
, •f <7 x)
.,, V v`^ , REMARKS
PRISM
LAB
'TYPE
HOURS
SLUDGE)
SEE BELOW
NO.
SIZE
�, x
r• _ - �;% lG. r„� �:J v
ID NO.
ai-
r�F• r---
Sampler's Signature'
Sampled By (Print Name) v r Affiliation '
Upon relinquishing, this - -ain of Custody is your authorization
for Prism to proceed with the analyses as requested above. Any changes must be
submitted in writing to the Prism Project Manager. There will be charrrges So any changes after nalyses have been initialized.
Relinquished y: (Signature) r
_ ; -. ;_-.-
Recely - Sigature „- . �' ^-� Date i Military/Hours Additional Comments:7T..,F:ee:
F,.-;•_ �
Site
Relmqul.hed ey: Signature)
gn e) �. ..-' ate'
Relinquished By: (Signature)'--'
Received For Prism Laboratories By: Data
Method of Shipment: E: ALL SAMPLE COOLERS SHOULD BE TAPED SHUT'WITH CUSTODY SEALS FOR TRANSPORTATION TO THE LABORATORY. COC Group No.
SAMPLES ARE NOT ACCEPTED AND VERIFIED AGAINST CDC UNTIL RECEIVED AT THE LABORATORY.
Mileage:
❑ Fed Ex ❑ UPS ❑ Hand -delivered ❑ Prism Field Service ❑
Other
NPDES: I UST: GROUNDWATER: DRINKING WATER: SOLID WASTE: A: CERCLA LANDFILL I OTHER:
NC ❑SCI NC
❑ SC I o NC ❑ SC CR
I OO NC 17 SC I U NC . U SC 00 NO ❑SCI NC O SC I NC ❑ SC NC ❑ SC
ul
—
O o 10
��• • • ^••��•. : �� ..cra+w: m = mmuer u = near lJi = Lifass r = Plastic: TL = Teflon -Lined Cap VOA = Volatile Organics Analysis (Zero Head Space) UUJ I ulvl Ct't t✓UIlY

PIUsM
IABORATORIES.MO.
Date: 09/14/07
Company: TRC Environmental Corporation
Contact; Leonard Moretz
Address: 5540 Centerview Dr. Ste.100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Client Project ID:
Prism COC Group No:
Collection Date(s):
Lab Submittal Date(s):
Case Narrative (Revised)
A B Carter Sprayfield
G0807167
08/07/07
08/07/07
This is a revised report and supersedes our original laboratory report dated 8/20/07, Added Magnesium on MW-19 and MW-21
This data package contains the analytical results for the project identified above and includes a Case Narrative, Laboratory Report and Quality
Control Data totaling 13 pages. A chain -of -custody is also attached for the samples submitted to Prism for this project.
Data qualifiers are flagged individually on each sample. A key reference for the data qualifiers appears at the end of this case narrative. Quality
control statements and/or sample specific remarks are included in the sample comments section of the laboratory report for each sample
affected.
Semi Volatile Analysis
NIA
Volatile Analysis
NIA
Metals Analysis
Analysis Note for Q25645 MS Sodium: Sample concentration too high for recovery evaluation.
Analysis Note for Q25645 MSD Sodium: Sample concentration too high for recovery evaluation,
Analysis note for Magnesium: QC unavailable to print with this sample group. LCS, MS and MSD had acceptable recoveries.
Wet Lab and Micro Analysis
No Anomalies Reported
Please call if you have any questions relating to this analytical report.
Date Reviewed by: R bi A. Jones Project Manager:
Signature: __ _ Signature:
Review Date: �0914/07 _ Approval Date:
Data Qualifiers Key Reference:
B: Compound also detected in the method blank.
#: Result outside of the QC limits.
DC): Compound diluted out.
E: Estimated concentration, calibration range exceeded,
J: The analyte was positively identified but the value is estimated below the reporting limit.
H: Estimated concentration with a high bias.
L: Estimated concentration with a low bias.
M: A matrix effect is present.
Ro iA.Jone
4
09/ 07
Notes: This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the writtten consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc. The results in this
report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis.
449 Springbrook Road, P.O. Box 240543. Charlotte NC 28224-0403
Phone: [phone] Toll Free: 8001529-6364 Fax: [phone]

NC Certification No. 402
ll SC Certification No. 99012
_.;c: NO Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
Full Svllc An-"Cblb 6ml—w4,ta15c1u11ons
TRC r—
Laboratory Report
09/14/07
nvlronmental Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield Client Sample ID: MW-19 (BG-2)
Attn: Leonard Moretz Sample Matrix: Water Prism Sample ID: 189045
5540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100 COC Group: G0807167
Raleigh, NC 27606 Time Collected: 08/07/07 11:20
Time Submitted: 08/07/07 12:15
Parameter Result
Units
Report
MDL
Dilution Method
Analysis Analyst
Batch
Limit
Factor
Date/Time
ID
Ammonia Nitrogen by Automated Phenate Method
---
Ammonia BRL
mg/L
0.10
0.0083
1 SM4500-NH3 H
08/09/07 13:35 celfaki
Q25659
Chloride by Ion Chromatography
Chloride 27
mg/L
2.0
0.045
2 9056
08/07/07 18:14 mlendreth
025596
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand BRL
mg/L
50
8.4
1 SM5220 D
08/13/07 11:20 celfaki
Q25711
Fecal Coliform by Membrane Filter
Fecal Coliform BRL
CFU/100 ml
2.0
2.0
1 SM9222 D
08/07/07 13:45 mlandreth
Q25617
Metals by ICP
Magnesium 6.3
mg/L
0.10
0,0024
1 6010B
08/14/07 19:15 mcampbell
* Analysis Note for Magnesium:
Sample ID BG-2.
Magnesium
result was
taken from Prism Sample ID 189501; Client
Nitrate by lon Chromatography
Nitrate 4.1
mg/L
0.20
0.0086
2 9056
08/07/07 18:14 mlandreth
Q25595
Sulfate by Ion Chromatography
Sulfate 68
mg/L
2.0
0.050
2 9056
08/07/07 18:14 mlandreth
Q25597
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids 190
mg/L
20
11
1 SM2540 C
08/13/07 10:35 mlandreth
Q25769
Total Organic Carbon_
Subcontract Report See
1 See Attached
Attached
* Analysis Note for Subcontract
Report:
Subcontracted to NC Certified Lab ID 618.
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-800/529-6364 - Fax: [phone]
Page 1 of 8

NC Certification No. 402
SC Certification No-99012
Laboratory Report
NC Drinking Water Cart. No. 37735
09/14/07
FLIT Samko AnRfWcal d EWIMn"nrol Solulloo
,
TRC Environmental Corporation Project ID:
A B Carter Sprayfield Client Sample ID:
MW-19 (BG-2)
Attn: Leonard Moretz
T
Sample Matrix:
Water Prism Sample ID:
189045
5540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100
COC Group:
G0807167
Raleigh, NC 27606
Time Collected:
08/07/07 11:20
Time Submitted:.
08/07/07 12:15
Parameter
Result Units Report
MDL Dilution Method Analysis
Analyst Batch
Limit
Factor Date/Time
ID
Sample Comment(s):
BRL = Below Reporting Limit
J- Estimated value between the Reporting Limit and the MDL
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis and meet state certification requirements other than
NELAC certification except for those instances indicated in the case narrative and/or test comments.
Ail results are reported on a wet -weight basis
Angela D. Overcash, V.P. Laboratory Services
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-800/529-6364 - Fax: [phone] Page 2 of 8

NC Certification No. 402
AM
SC Certification No. 99012
NC Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
Full SBM" AnetySc&16 Emlronmemnl Solullons
T
Laboratory Report
09/14/07
RC Environmental Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield Client Sample ID: MW-2()
Attn: Leonard Moretz Sample Matrix: Water Prism Sample ID: 189046
5540 Centerview Dr, Ste. 100 COC Group: G0807167
Raleigh, NC 27606 Time Collected: 08/07/07 10:55
Time Submitted: 08/07/07 12:15
Parameter Result Units
Report
MDL Dilution Method
Analysis Analyst
Batch
Limit
Factor
Date/Time
ID
Ammonia Nitrogen by Automated Phenate Method
.._. ....
__ ....—
Ammonia 0.062 J mg/L
0.10
0.0083 1 SM4500-NH3 H
08/09/07 13:35 celfaki
Q25659
Chloride by Ion Chromatography
Chloride 110 mg/L
2.0
0.045 2 9056
08/07/07 17:57 mlandreth
Q25596
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand BRL mg/L 50 8.4 1
Fecal Colifonn by Membrane Filter
Fecal Colifonn BRL CFU/100 ml 2.0 2.0 1
Metals by ICP
SM5220 D 08/13/07 11:20 celfaki Q25711
SM9222 D 08/07/07 13:45 mlandreth Q25617
Calcium
9.2
mg/L
0.10
0.024
1
60103
08/09/07 16:54 mcampbell
Q25645
Magnesium
4.2
mg/L
0.10
0.0024
1
6010E
08/09/07 16:54 mcampbell
Q25645
Sodium
160
mg/L
5.0
0.14
10
6010B
08/10/07 15:41 mcampbell
Q25645
Sample Preparation:
50 mL /
50 mL
3010A
08/09/07 7:10 ddixon
P19111
Nitrate by Ion Chromatography
Nitrate
8.1
mg/L
0.20
0.0086
2
9056
08/07/07 17:57 mlandreth
Q25595
Sulfate by Ion Chromatography '
Sulfate
200
mg/L
10.
0.25
10
9056
08/09/07 17:47 mlandreth
Q25676
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
570
mg/L
20
11
1
SM2540 C
08/13/07 10:30 mlandreth
Q25769
Total Organic Carbon
Subcontract Report See 1 See Attached
Attached
* AnalysiS Note for Subcontract Report: Subcontracted to NC Certified Lab ID 618.
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-8001529.6364 - Fax: [phone]
Page 3 of 8

r'
NC Certification No. 402
SC Certification No. 99012
Laboratory
Report
NC Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
-'
FLII Service An+yticet d En.IronSaWUons
09/14/07menW
TRC Environmental Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield
Attn:
Client Sample ID:
MW-20
Leonard Moretz
5540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100
Sample Matrix: Water
Prism Sample ID:
189046
Raleigh, NC 27606
COC Group:
G0807167
Time Collected:
08/07/07 10:55
Time Submitted:
08/07/07 12:15
Parameter Result Units Report MDL Dilution Method Analysis
Limit Factor Date/Time
Sample Comment(s):
BRL = Below Reporting Limit
J- Estimated value between the Reporting Limit and the MDL
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis and meet state certification requirements other than
NELAC certification except for those instances indicated in the case narrative and/or test comments.
All results are reported on a wet -weight basis
Angela D. Overcash, V.P. Laboratory Services
Analyst Batch
ID
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-800/529-6364 - Fax: [phone] Page 4 of 8

NC Certification No. 402
SC Certification No. 99012
Laboratory Report
NC Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
FOI1Semlen Ana �, 09/14/07
Iytl 6 EnHronmentel5olutlons
ARC Environmental Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield Client Sample ID: MW-21 (BG-1)
Attn: Leonard Moretz Matrix: Water Sample 5540 Centerview Dr. Ste.100 p Prism Sample ID: 189047
Raleigh, NC 27606 COC Group: G0807167
Time Collected: 08/07/07 10:20
Time Submitted: 08/07/07 12:15
Parameter Result
units
Report
MDL
Dilution Method
Analysis Analyst
Batch
Limit
Factor
Date/Time
ID
Ammonia Nitroclen bvAutomated Phenate Method
-"-"-
Ammonia BRL
mg/L
0.10
0.0083
1 SM4500-NH3 H 08/09/07 13:35 celfaki
Q25659
Chloride by Ion Chromatography
Chloride 14
mg/L
2.0
0.045
2 9056
08/07/07 20:41 mtandreth
Q25596
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand BRL
mg/L
50
8.4
1 SM5220 D
08/13/07 11:20 celfaki
Cl25711
Fecal Collform by Membrane Filter
Fecal Coliform BRL
CFU/100 ml
2.0
2.0
1 SM9222 D
08/07/07 13:45 miandreth
Q25617
Metals by ICP
Magnesium 1.6
* Analysis Note for Magnesium:
mg/L
0.10
0.0024
1 6010B
08/14/07 18:58 mcampbell
Sample ID BG-1.
Magnesium
result
was
taken from Prism
Sample ID 189500; Client
Nitrate by Ion Chromatography
Nitrate 1.1
mg/L
0.20
0.0086
2 9056
08/07/07 17:41 mtandreth
Q25595
Sulfate by Ion Chromatography
Sulfate 12
mg/L
2.0
0.050
2 9056
08/07/07 17:41 mtandreth
Gi25597
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids 54
mg/L
20
11
1
SM2540 C
08/13/07 10:30 mtandreth
Q25769
Total Organic Carbon
Subcontract Report See
Attached
1 See Attached
* Analysis Note for Subcontract
Report:
Subcontracted to NC Certified
Lab ID 618.
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-8001529-6364 - Fax. [phone]
Page 5 of 8

='
NC Certification No. 402
< =
SC Certification No. 99012
Laboratory Report
NO Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
09/14/07
Full Sakem Ana"c*j d Eir—nlal Solutlona
TRC Environmental Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfleld
Client Sample ID:
MW-21 (BG-1)
Attn: Leonard Moretz
Sample Matrix: Water
Prism Sample ID:
189047
5540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100
COC Group:
G0807167
Raleigh, NC 27606
Time Collected:
08/07/07 10:20
Time Submitted:
08/07/07 12:15
Parameter Result Units Report MDL Dilution Method Analysis Analyst Batch
Limit Factor DateMme ID
—.._.__..—... _.............. - ......._ _._ ._..---
Sample Comment(s):
BRL = Below Reporting Limit
J- Estimated value between the Reporting Limit and the MDL
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis and meet state certification requirements other than
NEL4C certification except for those instances indicated in the case narrative and/or test comments.
All results are reported on a wet -weight basis
Angela D. Overcash, V.P. Laboratory Services
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] = Toll Free Number: 1-800/529-6364 - Fax: [phone] Page 6 of 8

--
NC Certification No. 402
SC Certification No.99012
Laboratory
Report
mee o:j'.i
NC Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
09/14/07
Full Service Anaytical6 Emlronmenta SOlnllplty
TRC Environmental Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield
Attn: Leonard Moretz
Client Sample ID:
REP-001
6540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100
Sample Matrix: Water
Prism Sample ID:
189048
Raleigh, NC 27606
COC Group:
G0807167
Time Collected:
08/07/07 9:15
Time Submitted:
08/07/07 12:15
Parameter
Result
Units
Report
MDL
Dilution Method
Analysis Analyst
Batch
— ._.."
Limit
Factor
Date/Time
ID
Ammonia Nitrogen by Automated Phenate Method
— ". ........-
Ammonia
BRL
mg/L
0.10
0.0083
1 SM4500-NH3 H
08/09/07 13:35 celfaki
Q25659
Chloride by ion Chromatography
Chloride
14
mg/L
2.0
0.045
2 9056
08/07/07 17:08 mlandreth
Q25596
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
12J
m /L
g
50
8.4
1 SM5220 D
08/13/07 11:20 celfaki
Q25711
Fecal Coliform by Membrane Filter
Fecal Coliform
BRL
CFU/100 ml
2.0
2.0
1 SM9222 D
08/07/07 13:45 mlandreth
Q25617
Nitrate by ion Chromato ra h
Nitrate
1.1
mg/L
0.20
0.0086
2 9056
08/07/07 17:08 mlandreth
Q25595
Sulfate by ton Chromatography
Sulfate
11
mg/L
2.0
0.050
2 9056
08/07/07 17:08 mlandreth
Q25597
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
60
mg/L
20
11
1 SM2540 C
08/13/07 10:30 mlandreth
Q25769
Total Organic Carbon
Subcontract Report
See
1 See Attached
Attached
* Analysis Note for Subcontract Report:
Subcontracted
to NC Certified Lab ID 618.
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-800/529.6364 - Fax: [phone]
Page 7 of 8

-:[
NC Certification No. 402
SC Certification No. 99012
NC Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
Full Samlce Ana"cal a envliono nml Soluuero
TRC E vir 1
Laboratory Report
09/14/07
n onmenta Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield Client Sample ID: REP-001
Attn: Leonard Moretz Sample Matrix: Water Prism Sample ID: 189048
5540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100 COC Group: G0807167
Raleigh, NC 27606 Time Collected: 08/07/07 9:15
Time Submitted: 08/07/07 12:15
Parameter Result Units Report MDL Dilution Method Analysis Analyst Batch
Limit Factor Date/Time ID
Sample Comment(s): - - --- - - -
BRL = Below Reporting Limit
J- Estimated value between the Reporting Limit and the MDL
The results in this report relate only to the samples submitted for analysis and meet state certification requirements other than
NELAC certification except for those instances indicated in the case narrative and/or test comments.
All results are reported on a wet -weight basis
Angela D. Overcash, V.P. Laboratory Services
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-800/529-6364 - Fax. [phone]
Page 8 of 8

;4 NC Certification No. 402
` s SC Certification No. 99012
NC Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735
Full Service Anelyucel 6 Environmental 5olutiom
TRC Environmental Corporation Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield
Attn: Leonard Moretz
5540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Level It CMG Report
09/14/07
COC Group Number: G0807167
Date/Time Submitted: 08/07/07 12:15
Nitrate by Ion Chromatography,
method 9056
Method Blank
Result
RL Control Limit
units
QC Batch
-- ...
__......_.
ID
Nitrate
ND
0.1 <0.05
mg/L_
Q25595
Laboratory Control Sample
-
-"-
Recovery
Recovery
Result
Spike Amount
Units
%
Ranges
QC Balch
-- -
ID
Nitrate
5.125
5
mg/L
103
---
90-110
Q25595
atnx Spike
-...__.
---- ---
Recove n
Recove
Sample to:
Result
Spike Amount
Units
Ranges
QC Balch
-
to
189045 Nitrate
26.158
22.22
mg/L
99
80-120-
-•---
a tria Spike Duplicate
--
Q25595
Recovery
Recove ry
RPD
Sample to:
Result
SpikeAma,unl
Units
%
Ranges
RPD Rango,
QCt3alch
to
189045 Nitrate
26.289
22.22
mg/L
100
80-120
0 0 - 20
Q25595
Chloride by Ion Chromatograghv
method 9056
Method Blank
Resun
RL Control Limit
Units
QC Batch
---- --
-
to
Chloride
ND
-
1 <0.5
mg/L
—
- ............ ............_
Q25596
Laboratory Control Sample
---.....
- --
---
--........_ ..........
--
Recovery
Recovery
Result
Spike Amount
Units
%
Ranges
QC Batch
Chloride
--- - -
5.179
5
mg/L
104
90-110
Q25596
Matrix Spike
-
_._.._.
Recovery
Recovery
Sample to:
Result
Spike Amount
Units
%
Ranges
QC Batch
-
D
189045 Chloride
47.656
22.22
mg/L
93
-..
80-120
atT. Spike Duplicate
-
Recovery
Recovery
'Y
RPD
Sample ID:
Result
Spike Amount
Units
i
Ranges
RPD Range
QC Batch
ID
189045 Chloride ,
48.051
22,22
mg/L
94
80-120
1 0 - 20
Q25596
Fecal Coliform by Membrane Filter, method SM9222 D
_—
et od Blank
...•....-_-
Result RL
Control Limit Units
QC Batch
..
ID
Fecal Coliform
ND 2
<1 CFU/100 ml
Q25617
Duplicate
Sample Duplicate
-
- -
RPD
Sample ID:
Result Result
Units
RPD Range
QC Balch
189022 Fecal Coliform
ND 0
CFU/100 ml
0 0 - 20
Q25617
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written consent of Prism Laboratories, Inc.
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543 - Charlotte, NC 28224-0543
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-8001529-636-4 - Fax: [phone] Pagel of 4

NC Certification No. 402
acCertification No. mm1e
mcDrinking Water Cert. No. urroo
Fu
|RCEnvironmental Corporation
Attn: Lounun1Momtz Project |D: 48Carter 8pmyfo|d
554OContorvimwDr. Ste. 1OO
Raleigh, NC27800
Level UU ���~ Report
�
�^� " "° ��^° .v��8���,~ '
'
0811407 �
COSGroup Number: G0807107 '
|
uam/nmeSubmittod: 08/077071215 �
�
Metals by ICP �method`60108
_
m Control Limit mit,
........
QC Batch
oummm
0.0128
0.1 "o.on
mgll�
------�'---------�
m
waonaxmm
uuoou
0.1 <o.00
mg/L
425646
»»«mm
0o183
0.5 ,o.us
m*/L
ocs«*s
�
La»»'»n/n«n�,v/mamn/o
-''-------'----------'----_---
-�__--__-�
�"
s*m*wum
,,�
Recovery
�
Recovery
'�'�~
.oenn�s
Cc Batch
Calcium-------'_-
1.00
/o
mg/L
100
mwoo
uu««*«Magnesium
u.sm
�
mL
�
»«
ou1m»Magnesium
Sodium
0.995
1
ousn*o
_ .
�amxapixo
-----------__---__-_
my/L
100
un_1un
ouso*n
s" __-_------_
� v�,
o,'���,,/
u"�
Recovery
ecov
R�����
nou"'��
1000�oca/uum
�n ------------�---------'-
ID,
Magnesium
4�r
,
mg/L
84
n��un
`
uzon�o
Sodium1�
1
��
�
��1u�
q��n
1
mm�
�mno # n�1xo
x«atnxSpike oupoco»*
'-----------
-
ocosws
��2�1�_._--__
«e"
a,m"^m"m
vm*
Recovery
'~Ranges ~~`
mm mo
nr *
189046ou/cium
10.1
----------
1
------
� �
----�-'--'---
m
wunnommm
5.04
mm/L
' �--'----o'�-o
' "
� o'zo
0�so«o
Sodium
�
oo
/«'�uo
� o'uo
o25645
164
1
my/L
noo #
75'125
n o'co
o25645
Ammonia Nitroc
Method Blank
_-_-__-'---_-___--_-------'-�--_---^-___--_-�
nL Control Limit
Unit,,
QC Batch
Laboratory Control Sample
Result SpikeAmount
Recovery
Units %
Recovery
Ranges
QC Batch
Sample 11):
Result Spike Amount
Recovery
Units
Recovery
Ranges
CC Batch
-%
Matrix Spike Duplicate
Q25659
Result SpikeArnouril
Units % Ranges
RPD Range
QC Balch
10
Th*report should not be reproduced, except inits entirety. without the written consent mpHSm Laboratories, Inc.
_~"p".u"rooxRoad ' P.O.anxzvo:4o ' cou,mne w000zz4-0000
Page 2 of 4
/

A-59—fit NC Certification No. 402 arch t ` SC Certification No.99012 Level 11 QC Report
' " O TO IE�INo;m';t
;_; NC Drinking Water Cert. No. 37735 09/14/07
F-118-1co Anaytim R Environmental solutions
ARC Environmental Corporation Attn: Leonard Moretz Project ID: A B Carter Sprayfield COC Group Number: G0807167
5540 Centerview Dr. Ste. 100 Date/Time Submitted: 08/07/07 12:15
Raleigh, NC 27606
Sulfate by Ion Chromatography
method 9056
Method Blank
—
Result
RL Control Umil
Units
QC Batch
ID
Sulfate
ND
1 <0.5
mg/L
Laboratory —Sample
—
Q25676
Recovery
—
Result
Spike Amount
Units
/
Ranges
QC Balch
------
%
ID
Sulfate
—._
5.268
5
mg/L
105
90-110
Matrix Spike
-
----
_
Q25676
Sample ID: —�
Result
Spike Amount
Units
Recovery
%
Recovery
Ranges
_
QC Balch
_ ---
—....._.
._._
%
to
188909 Sulfate
94.66
22.22
mg/L
115
80-120
—
-
Matrix Spike Duplicate
---
_
—
Q25675
Sample ID:
Result
Spike Amount
units
Re i very
Recove
Ranges
RPD Range
QC Batch
ID
188909 Sulfate
95.093
22.22
mg/L
117
80-120
0 0-20
Q25676
Chemical Oxvgen Demand method SM5220 D
Method Blank
-
----
__
--_ _— Result
RL Control Limit
Units
QC Batch
10
Chemical Oxygen Demand ND
50 <25
m
--_ol ._....Sample _._-
Laboratory Contr
--- '
-- --
-- - ---
Q25711
Recovery
Recovery
---
- — Result
SpikeAmounl
Units
%
Ranges
QC Batch
Chemical Oxygen Demand 398.75
400
mglL
100
90 110
-
Matrix Spike - —
---.._
...
Q25711
Sample to: Result
Spike Amount
Units
Recovery
%
Recovery
Ranges
-_..----
QC Batch
%
to
5 Chemical Oxygen Demand 1116.16
1000
mg/L
102
Matrix Spike Duplicate
---
80-120
--
Q25711
Sample ID: Result
--__._....._..
Spike Amount
Units
Recovery
%
Recovery
Ranges RPD
RPD
Range
QC Balch
_.......
_
- ..._.
% %
%
ID
189305 Chemical Oxygen Demand 1106.8
1000
mg/L
101
e0-120 1
0 - 20
Q25711
Total Dissolved Solids method SM2540 C
Method Blank
- -
Resull
RL Control Limit
Units
QC Balch
ID
Total Dissolved Solids -8
20 <20
mg/L
—
Laboratory Control Sample
Q25769
Recovery
Recovery-
- Result
Spike Amount
Units
%
Ranges
QC Batch
%
ID
Total Dissolved Solids 1014
1000
mg/L
101
90-110
-- ..... _---
Duplicate _..
- Sample
Duplicate
Q25769
_..
Sample ID: Result
Result
Units
RPD
RPD
Range
QC Balch
189048 Total Dissolved Solids 60
52
mg[L
14
0 - 20
Q25769
This report should not be reproduced, except in its entirely,
without
the written consent of Prism Laboratories,
449 Springbrook Road - P.O. Box 240543
- Charlotte,
NC 28224-0543
Inc.
Phone: [phone] - Toll Free Number: 1-800/529-6364
- Fax: [phone]
Page 3 of 4

wcCertification No. 402
ocCertification No. swo1u
wcDrinking Water Cert. No. m7oo
TRC Environmental Corporation Project /D: A B Cortar8prayfie|d
Attn: LonnardK4omtz
5540ContemknwDr. Sha.1UO
#-SeCase Narrative
^
This report should not uoreproduced. except mits entirety, without the =ommconsent mPrism Laboratories,
�9npnnoumobRoad ' p/z.Box amm3 ' nxa,|oxe mC�2e�oem Inc.

PRiS CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
LABORATORIES. INC. q
PAGE -i— OF f_ QUOTE 4 TO ENSURE PROPER BILLING:
Full Sorvice Analytical & Environmental Solutions Project Name: 4CaA1_r Sp,
;9 Springbroek Road • P.O. BoX.-'240543 • Charlotte, NC 28224-o543 Short Hold Analysis es (No) UST Project: (Yes) No
hone: 704/529-6364 ° Fax: [phone] *Please ATTACH any pro ect specific reporting (QC LEVEL 111111 IV)
lent Company Name: %-�F /, provisions and/or QC Requirements
,eportTo/Contact Name: l �� �^ "`} Invoice To:
Address: »`t'C �� +� ry 0) —� r SA c tCO
teporting Address:
Samples INTACT upon arrival?
Redeived ON WET ICE? Temp
NO N/A
—
PROPER PRESERVATIVES indicated?
Feceived WITHIN HOL•D1NG TIMES?
— •
CUSTODY -SEALS- INTACT?
--- -�
VOIATILES rec'd W/OUT HEADSPACE?
✓ — —
PROPER CONTAINERS used?
—
fZ _ tJ
51`t - Fax (Yes) (t o� g TO BE FILLED IN BY CLIENT/SAMPLING PERSONNEL
hone: Purchase Order No./Billing Reference NC �
JLt T G rc scl .�.s ,cw^ p 1 D ❑ 2 Da s ❑ 3 Days ❑ 4 Days O 5 Days Certification: NELAC USACE FL
:mail es (No) Email Address_ -- Requested Due Date , ay Y Rush Work Must Be
EDD Type: PDF ✓ Excel Other "Working Days" o 6-9 Days 6taridard 10 days ❑ Pre -Approved SC_ OTHER
Site Location Name:
loAst Samples received after 15:00 will be processed next business day.
Site Location Physical Address: �'��T—='"� I n C Turnaround time is based on business days, excluding weekends and holidays. Water Chlorinated: YES_ _ —
(SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS & CONDITIONS REGARDING SERVICES Sample Iced Upon Collection: YES ✓NO
RENDERED BY PRISM LABORATORIES, INC. TO CLIENT) -
-YSES REQUES I ED
/4/U
TIME MATRIX
CLIENT DATE COLLECTED (SOIL,
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION COLLECTED MILITARY WATER OR
HOURS SLUDGE)
Zo
_. _.
_► �_s S
d'.Zo.
jZ�P-O�1
q''i5'
Sampler's refs Signatureti.%__ !�(vof
Upon relinquishing", this am of
c„h—ittPci in wrltlnq to the Prisrg
❑ Fed Ex ❑ UPS O Hand-de*fdred M
NPDES: I UST: GRN
° NC ❑ SC' ❑ NC ❑ SC E! NC
d' PRISM
ur LAB
y REMARKS {D N0.
�39ays
_ 1B9z"o-
�B9J4-I-
Comments: Site ArrivalTlme:
Site Departure Time:
. Reld Tech Fee:
Mileage:
e
ONISINAL
S�CONTAINERPRESERVA-
•TYPTIVES
SEE 6EL
v'�rc5
Sampled By (Print Name) S+cnY l Vo'� it ­4 Affiliation I ILL
is your authorization for Prism to proceed with the analyses as requested above. Any changes must be
4anaaer. There will be chargesfer\any changes pjter analyses have been initialized. �=—r—
sna onww..�... �.. .._. ---- -
EPTED AND VERIFIED AGAINST CO UNTIL RECEIVED AT THE LABORATORY.
ism Field Service 0 01her
70WATER: DRINKING WATER: SOLID WASTE: RCRA: CERCLA LANDFILL I OTHER.
[a Sc °NO ❑SC °NC ❑SC j ❑NC ElSCI ❑NC ❑SCI ❑NC ❑SC. ❑NC ❑SC
I -------—° ° --------- i ❑ --.. I °
—
���. r = glass P = Plastic; TL = Teflon -Lined Cap VOA = Volatile Organics Analysis (Zero Head Space)
.. .... ......7.. ..

ACCESS
A NAL,YnCAL, INC.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CLIENT
Prism Laboratories Inc.
PO BOX 240543
Charlotte, NC 28224
ATTENTION
Robbi Jones
PROJECTID
Prism LabJ-G0807167
LABORATORY REPORT NUMBER
207080921
DATE
08/16/2007
Primary Data Review By
Curtis Ekker
Data Validation Manager, GCAL
PLEASE NOTE:
Secondary Data Review By
Ashley B. Amick
Project Manager, Access Analytical
[e-mail]
- Unless otherwise noted, all analysis on this report performed at Gulf Coast Analytical Labs (GCAL), 7979 GSRI
Rd. Baton Rouge, LA 70820.
- GCAL is SCDHEC certified laboratory # 73006, NCDENR certified lab # 618, GA certified lab # LA-01955, NELAP
certified laboratory # 01955
- Local support services for this project are provided by Access Analytical, Inc.. Access Analytical is a representative of
GCAL serving clients in the SC/NC/GA areas. All questions regarding this report should be directed to your local Access
Analytical representative at 803.781.4243 or toll free at 888.315.4243.

NELAP CERTIFICATE NUMBER 01955
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PERFORMED BY
GULF COAST ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC.
Report Date 08/16/2007
GCAL Regan 207080921
III��VVIII�II�IIIIIN�III�V�II�N
Deliver To Prism Laboratories Inc.
PO BOX 240543
Charlotte, NC 28224
706-529-6364
Attn Robbi Jones
Project Prism LabJ-G0807167

CASE NARRATIVE
Client: Prism Laboratories Inc. Report: 207080921
Gulf Coast Analytical Laboratories received and analyzed the sample(s) listed
on the sample cross-reference page of this report. Receipt of the sample(s) is documented
by the attached chain of custody. This applies only to the sample(s) listed in this report.
No sample integrity or quality control exceptions were identified unless noted below.
No anomalies were found for the analyzed sample(s).

Laboratory Endorsement
Sample analysis was performed in accordance with approved methodologies provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency or other recognized agencies. The samples and their corresponding
extracts will be maintained for a period of 30 days unless otherwise arranged. Following this retention
period the samples will be disposed in accordance with GCAL's Standard Operating Procedures.
Common Abbreviations Utilized in this Report
ND Indicates the result was Not Detected at the specified RDL
DO Indicates the result was Diluted Out
MI Indicates the result was subject to Matrix Interference
TNTC Indicates the result was Too Numerous To Count
SUBC Indicates the analysis was Sub -Contracted
FLD Indicates the analysis was performed in the Field
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
MDL Method Detection Limit
RDL Reporting Detection Limit
00:00 Reported as a time equivalent to 12:00 AM
Reporting Flags Utilized in this Report
J Indicates an estimated value
U Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected
B (ORGANICS) Indicates the analyte was detected in the associated Method Blank
B (INORGANICS) Indicates the result is between the RDL and MDL
Sample receipt at GCAL is documented through the attached chain of custody. In accordance with ISO
Guide 25 and NELAC, this report shall be reproduced only in full and with the written permission of GCAL.
The results contained within this report relate only to the samples reported. The documented results are
presented within this report.
This report pertains only to the samples listed in the Report Sample Summary and should be retained as
a permanent record thereof. The results contained within this report are intended for the use of the client.
Any unauthorized use of the information contained in this report is prohibited.
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and
Statement of Work both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions in the case
narrative. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data package and in the computer -readable
data submitted has been authorized by the Quality Assurance Manager or his/her designee, as verified by
the following signature.
(\ ­J Ctte';
CURTIS EKKER
DATA VALIDATION MANAGER
GCAL REPORT 207080921
THIS REPORT CONTAINS PAGES.

Report Sample Summary
GCAL ID
Client ID
Matrix
Collect Date/Time
20708092101
189045
Water
08/07/200711:20
20708092102
189046
Water
08107/200710:35
20708092103
189047
Water
08/07/200710:20
20708092104
189048
Water
08/07/2007 09:15
GCAL Report 207080921
Receive DatelTime
08/09/2007 09:15
08/09/2007 09:15
08/09/2007 09:15
08/09/2007 09:15

Summary of Compounds Detected
SM 5310B TOC
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units
C-012 Total Organic Carbon 6.4 1.0 0.15 mg/L
SM 5310B TOC
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units
C-012 Total Organic Carbon 9.2 1.0 0.15 mg/L
SM 5310B TOC
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units
C-012 Total Organic Carbon 6.9 1.0 0.16 mg/L
SM 5310B TOC
CAS# Parameter Result RDL MDL Units
C-012 Total Organic Carbon 5.4 1.0 0.15 mg/L
GCAL Report 207080921

SM 5310B TOC
Prep Date Prep Batch Prep Method Dilution Analyzed By Analytical Batch
1 08/14/2007 20:34 BMC 355002
t;ASiF Parameter Result RDL MDL Units
C-012 Total Organic Carbon 6.4 1.0 0.15 mg/L
GCAL Report 207080921

General Chemistry Quality Control Summary
Analytical Batch 355002
Client ID
MB355002
LCS355002
Prep Batch N/A
GCAL ID
'516220
516221
Sample Type
Method Blank
LCS
Analytical Date
08/14/200711:25
08/14/200711:44
Matrix
Water
Water
SM 5310B TOC
Units mg/L
Spike
Result
Control
Result
RRUded
% R
Limits % R
C-012 Total Organic Carbon
0.15U 0.15
50.0
50.4
101
80 - 120
Analytical Batch 355002
Client ID
002
515551 MS
Prep Batch N/A
GOAL ID
20708085301
516223
Sample Type
SAMPLE
MS
Analytical Date
08/14/200713:02
08/14/2007 13:39
Matrix
Water
Water
SM 5310B TOC
Units mg/L
Spike
Control
Result
RQUded
Result
% R
Limits % R
C-012 Total Organic Carbon
12.0 0.15
55.0
76.9
118
75 - 125
Analytical Batch 355002
Client ID
002
515551 DUP
Prep Batch NIA
GCAL ID
20708085301
516222
Sample Type
SAMPLE
DUP
Analytical Date
08/14/200713:02
08/14/200713:20
Matrix
Water
Water
SM 5310B TOC
lull
RUe RDL
Result
RPD
Limit
C-012 Total Organic Carbon
12.0 0.15
11.7
3
25
GCAL Report 207080921

�°L"=01�� - -• PAGE —t-- OF I_ QUOTE # TO ENSURE PROPER BILLING:
Full Service Analytical & Environmental Solutions
449 Springbrook Road • P.O. Box-240543 • Charlotte, NC 28224-0543 Project Name:
Phone: [phone] # Fez., 7041525-M Short Hold Analysis; Pe
(No) UST Project: (Yes) No
Client Company Name: 1rRG "Please ATTACH any pro specific reporting (QC LEVEL 1 II III IV)
p y provisions and/or QC Requirements
Report To/Contact Name: l���^' } Invoice To:
Reporting Address: �S�f O C lzrv•, } 9r Sir too
Address:
R .1 e a A_ " C .
updn arrival?
YES NO N/A
T IGE? Temp 0
RV_.RTIVES indicated?
✓
I HOLDING. TIMES?:,
—
S INTACT?
. DUTHEIADSPACE?
Phone: '� 19, - gZ 3iSc Fax (Yes) ( % Purchase Order No./Billing Reference
Email es (No) .Email Address IN { Requested Due Date ❑ 1 DaY 02Da s ❑ 3 Days ❑ 4 Da s ❑ 5 Da s
Y Y Y
EDD Type: PDF Excel -'Other "Working Days" ❑ 6,9 Days E Standard 10 days ❑ Rush Work Must Be
Site Location Name: � CsA-rs Pre -Approved
Samples received after 15:00 will be processed next business day.
Site Location Physical Address: c2c..S �"G , N C Turnaround time is based on business days, excluding weekends and holidays.
(SEE REVERSE FOR TERMS & CONDITIONS REGARDING SERVICES
RENDERED BY PRISM LABORATORIES, INC. TO CLIENT)
TO BE FILLED IN BY CLIENT/SAMPLING PERSONNEL
Certification: NELAC USACE FL INC
SC OTHER N/A
Water Chlorinated: YES _ NO
Sample Iced Upon Collection: YES NO —
CLIENT
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
DATE
COLLECTED
TIME
COLLECTED
MILITARY
HOURS
MATRIX
(SOIL,
WATER OR
SLUDGE)
SAMPLE CONTAINER
PRESERVA-
TIVES
ANALYSES REQUESTED
�/
7Y� ,z'�- 4 x�
�f - t1.� Ll V - y REMARKS
- (�9 v 114v
PRISM
LAB
ID NO.
`TYPE
SEE BELOW
NO.
SIZE
NLta - Zo
N,'
—
I
131Qy a
Sampler's Signature
Sampled By (Print Name) }c
Affiliation
7Departure
Upon relinquishing, this ain of Custody is your authorization for Prism to proceed with the analyses as requested above. Any changes must be
submitted in writing to the PrisT Project Manager. There will be c4 any changes Vter alyses have been initialized.
Relinquished B : (Signature) R iv d (Sig ature) Da /Military/Hour ' � Additional Comments:
Relinquis ed - : (Signature)
ign-
at
Field Tech Fee:
Relin shed.Sy: a e)
Rec ve F r Prism Lab ones By:
D
,�
`
Mileage:
Me E- S SHOULD BE TAPED SHU CU DY SEALS F RANSPORTA ON TO THE LABORATORY.
SA S AR NOT CEPTED AND VERIFIED AGAINST CO UNTIL RECEIVED AT THE LABORATORY.
❑ Fed Ex ❑UPS ❑Hand -de ed Prism Field Service ❑ Other
O Group No.
/-
PUUNUVVA
UKIN
❑ NC ❑ SCI ❑❑ NC ❑ SC NC ❑ SC I tFi— n NC Cl SC A 1 tR. I OONC ❑ SC E: I R❑NC 0 SC' NC L❑ SC ❑❑ NC F❑ SC 0❑ NC IDSC
•r­r'1I1JTAINFR TVPF r-nnFs. A = Amhnr r: = (':laar r; = (-,lagc P = Plagtirr TI = Taflnn-I inart ran V()A = Vnlatila nrnnnins Analvsis (7arn Haar) Rnara)
ORIGINAL

William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r �(a IFY Coleen H. Sullins, Director
, Division of Water Quality
O "<
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
July 27, 2007
A.B. Carter
Post Office Box 518
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Attention: Ernest W. Sumner
RE: Surface Irrigation Inspection Report
Permit No. WQ0004270
Facility: AB Carter
Gaston County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Sumner:
Enclosed you will find the report for the inspection that I conducted on July 18, 2007. 1 direct you, in
particular, to the Inspection Summary. A review of submitted monitoring data indicates that the high pH
of the wastewater has resulted in strongly alkaline soil conditions on the application fields. In addition,
reported sodium adsorption ratios (SAR) were miscalculated. Corrected SAR far exceeds the
recommended values. Together, these factors can alter soil structure and adversely impact the nutrient
up -take of the vegetation. This can lead to irreparable damage to the cover crop as well as potential
groundwater impacts.
In order to address this situation, you should initiate the following recommendations:
1. Reduce or re -direct the sodium component of the waste stream. Please be advised that any
such action will require application for a permit modification and the necessary supporting
information. (Form WWIS 12-06 found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/lau/main.html).
2. Conduct a more comprehensive investigation to better. characterize soil fertility at the application
site. The Gaston County Cooperative Extension Office and the NCDA & CS, Agronomic Division
should be able to assist you in this matter.
3. Sample the groundwater for sodium, calcium and magnesium during the August compliance
monitoring event.
4. Within 90 days, submit an action plan to this office. The plan should include a time line based on
modification of the waste stream and information obtained from the comprehensive investigation.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 704/235-2183.
Sincerely,
Peggy Finley
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure: Inspection Report
MAF/AB Carter/ inspection rpt 7/18/07
ne
NoithCarolh
Division of Water Quality / Aquifer Protection Section / Mooresville Regional Office Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]%atura[!t
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org v

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
A 61 P?
4 4 V4O
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
SURFACE IRRIGATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
City/Town/Owner: AB Carter, Inc. County: Gaston
Permit # WQ0004270 Project Name: AB Carter
Issuance Date: June 22, 2006 Expiration Date: May 31, 2011
Permittee Contact: Ernest Sumner Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
ORC: Lee Pennington Telephone No.: 704/874-2\754
Cert#WW2 987903 Cert #SI 987583
Backup ORC: Charles Parker Cert #WW1 23436 Telephone No.: 704/865-2101
Cert #SI 19607
Reason for Inspection
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP OTHER
Inspection Summary: (additional comments may be included on attached pages)
A review of the on -site records indicated that they were in good order. There
were instances where the lab has incorrectly reported effluent monitoring data (SAR
and fecal coliform). This matter needs to be discussed with Mr. Chris Tita at PAR
Labs.
The lagoon walls have been stabilized and reinforced. The pump house has also
been stabilized. Increased BOD5 per the effluent monitoring bears watching.
With the exception of a few small bare spots, the application fields appeared to
be in good condition at the time of inspection. However, effluent monitoring and the
recent soil fertility report indicate that the high sodium concentrations in the waste
stream are having a negative effect on the subsurface. An investigation must be
conducted to determine the full extent of the problem so that renovation/repair of the
fields can be initiated.
Is a follow --up inspection necessary? _X_ yes no
Inspector Name/Title: Peggy Finley, Environmental Specialist
Tel. No. 704/235-2183 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection: 7/18/07

ti
Permit #W00004270 Page 2
Type
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
_X_ Lagoon Spray, Low Rate
Lagoon Drip, Low Rate
Treatment
Y Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit.
Y Do all treatment units appear to be operational. If no, note below.
Treatment and Storage Lagoon
Y Influent structure (free of obstructions)
N Banks/berms (are there signs of seepage, overtopping, down cutting or erosion).
_N_Vegetation (is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank
_NA_Liner (if visible, is it intact)
—NA—Baffles/curtains (in need of repair)
Y Freeboard (>2 feet from overtopping)
_N Staff gauge (clearly marked)
_N Evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or laying down/broken)
_N Unusual color (very black, textile colors)
N Foam (are antifoam agents used)
_N Floating mats (sludge, plants, inorganics)
_N_ Excessive solids buildup (from bottom)
Y Aerators/mixers operational (if present)
Y Effluent structure (free of obstructions, easily accessible)
Influent auma station
Y all pumps present, operational _N_bypass structure present
Y bar screen, maintained —Y—free of excessive debris
_Y bars evenly spaced —N—bars excessively corroded
_Y back-up power
Flow Measurement — Influent NA
Is flowmeter calibrated annually?
Is flowmeter operating properly?
Does flowmeter operate continuously?
Does flowmeter record flow?
Does flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?
Flow Measurement — Water -Use Records
Is water use metered?
_NE Are the daily average values properly calculated?
NE = not examined

r'
Permit #W00004270
Page 3
Disinfection
_1_ Is the system working? Is the system properly maintained?
_Y_ Tablets Gas Liquid UV
_Y If tablets, proper size? _2_ Present in Cylinder(s)?
If gas/liquid, does cylinder/tank storage seem safe?
If bulbs, are replacement bulbs on hand?
_Y _ Is contact chamber free of sludge, solids and growth?
Comments: 1. Not verified at this time. Chlorine residuals appear adequate but the lab
has been incorrectly reporting fecal coliform counts.
2. The chlorine tablets are contained in a wire basket located at a weir prior
to discharge to the lagoon.
Flow Measurement — Effluent
_N_ Is the flowmeter calibrated annually?
Y Is the flowmeter operating properly?
_N_ Does the flowmeter monitor continuously?
_?_ Does the flowmeter appear to monitor accurately?
Residuals
storage/treatment
Disposal (final end use)
Y Is the application equipment present and operational?
_N_ Is application equipment in need repair?
_N_ Spray heads calibrated this past year?
_ N_ Are cover crops the type specified in permit?
_*_ Is cover crop in need of improvement?
_N_ Signs of runoff?
_?_ Signs of ponding?
Comments: The application fields appeared to be in generally good condition. Three or
four small bare depressions were observed. These need to be filled in and reseeded.
Y Are buffers adequate?
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
N Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
N Are restrictions for use of these areas specified?
Y Is permit being followed?
N Is there evidence of runoff or drift?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?

Y
Permit No. WQ0004270
Page 4
Recordkeeping
Y Is permit available upon request?
Y Are flow rates less than permitted flow?
Y Are operational logs present? _Y_ Complete?
Y Are lab sheets available for review?
N Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
Y Are all samples analyzed for the required parameters?
N_ Are there any 2L GW quality violations?
Y Are annual soil reports available?
_N_ Did the last report indicate a need for lime? _NA_ Was it applied?
_N_Has DWQ received any complaints regarding the facility in the last 12 months?
Comment: The lab has been incorrectly reporting SAR values and fecal coliform
counts.
Groundwater Monitoring
Y Does the permit require monitoring wells? If so,
_*_ Are the monitoring wells properly installed according to the permit?
_Y_ Are the wells properly identified?
Are the wells damaged?
Comment: * MW-20 is located down gradient and within a few feet of the base of the
storage lagoon. It was originally installed as part of a RCRA investigation.

AB Carter, Inc Gaston County
BOD5 Fecal Col NH3 as N Mg TSS
7/1 /2005
8/1/2005 39 0.85 9.41
9/1 /2005
10/1/2005
11 /1 /2005 32 1.32 0.128
12/1 /2005
1/1/2006
2/1/2006 53 1.09 0.16
3/1/2006
4/1/2006
5/1 /2006
6/1 /2006
7/1 /2006
pH Na Ca SAR Corrected
SAR
48 9.8 692 4.76
101 9.9 1470 5.55 456.4
80 9.95 1150 4.06 153
8/1/2006
169 <39* 1.73 0.419 60 9.17 1400
9/1 /2006
10/1 /2006
11/1/2006
193 <2003* 1.5 1.14 97 9.9 1390
12/1 /2006
1/1/2007
2/1/2007
177 <1815* 5.35 1.38 48 9.8 943
3/1/2007
4/1/2006
5/1/2007
* fecal coliform incorrectly reported as a geometric mean
6/1 /2007
3.49
7.16
181
6.81
6.97
504
3.3
6.16
109

Example of SAR Calculation for AB Carter using effluent data from 2/1/07
Na (mg/L)
Na Conversion (1/23)
Na (meq/L)
943
0.043478261
41
Ca (mg/L)
Ca Conversion (1/20)
Ca (meq/L)
3.3
0.05
0.165
Mg (mg/L)
Mg Conversion (1/12.2)
Mg (meq/L)
1.38
0.081967213
0.113114754
SAR = Na / ((Ca + Mg)/2)^0.5 units are meq/L
SAR =
109.9

Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management
June 6, 2006
Mr. Alan Klimek, DiroEtor �—
Division of Water Quality
Archdale Building
11617 MSC
Raleigh, Nort� Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: /Receipt of Addendum to NOD Comments
RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Application
A.B. Carter, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina
NCD 003 154 010
Dear Mr. Klimek:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
RECEIVED/ DENR / DWQ
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
SUN 0 9 2006
Enclosed please find the addendum to the Notice of Deficiency (NOD) issued for the A.B. Carter, Inc.,
RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Application. This addendum addresses specific deficiencies
in the application as identified in the first NOD dated February 15, 2006.
A review of this new material will be completed during the month of June 2006. If you have any
questions or comments, please call me at [phone].
Respectfully Submitted,
/aryedlecki
Facility Management Branch
Hazardous Waste Section
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Larry Fox — without enclosure
rc: Mr. Bud McCarty — Branch Head
Mr. Robert Glaser — Unit Supervisor
File Room
rf�l�� n TsT
t" �' SiY 1 _i
1I
OF
DIRECT•. OFFICE
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, north Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] l PAX 919-715-36051 Internet http:/Iv�rastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity; Affirmative Action Employer— Printed on Dual Purpose recycled Paper
CAmelinsWimek.doc

TRH
May 12, 2006
Ms. Mary Siedlecki
North Carolina Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Hazardous Waste Section
Facilities Management Branch
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
r ,r
'IAY 200Received
r
Hazardous Waste
SUBJECT: Response to Comments
RCRA Part B Post Closure Permit Renewal Submittal
A.B. Carter Inc.,
Gastonia, North Carolina
NCD 003 154 010
Dear Ms. Siedlecki:
RECEIVED/ DENR f DWQ
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
JUN 0 9 Z006
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC), on behalf of A.B. Carter, Inc. (A.B. Carter), is
pleased to submit these responses to comments on the above -referenced Part B Post
Closure Permit application. A.B. Carter will continue to operate under the existing
permit, including semi-annual groundwater sampling and reporting, until this renewal
application is approved.
We appreciate your review of this renewal application. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call me at [phone] or Ernest Sumner of A.B. Carter at (704)
874-2724.
Sincerely,
TRC Environmental Corporation
Leonard C. Moretz, L.G.
Program Manager
Attachments
Cc: Ernest Sumner, A.B. Carter, Inc.
5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Main: 919-828-3150 • Fax: [phone]
www.trcsolutions.com
LAA. B. Carter\RCRA Permit Comments Response\Submittal Letter.doc

rac
A.B. Carter, Inc.
GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA
EPA I.D. NCD 003 154 010
RCRA PART B POST CLOSURE PERMIT RENEWAL
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
May 12, 2006
The following comments by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) identified issues associated with review of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) post -closure permit renewal application for the three permitted units,
including two sludge ponds and one wastewater storage pond, at the A.B. Carter, Inc., facility
located in Gastonia, North Carolina.
The responses to these comments and the associated requested additional information is provided
in this submittal. Additionally, this submittal has been certified by A. B. Carter, Inc. on the
attached certification form to be included in Section K of the permit application.
Comment
RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form: 270.13(b)
The permit renewal application requires that site location, including latitude and longitude, be
provided. Although the post office mailing address for the site has been provided, the physical
location of the site has been omitted (Part C, page 1, line 4). Please provide this information for
completeness.
Response
A revised Part C, page 1 is attached that includes the street address of 4801 York Highway,
Gastonia, NC 28053. The latitude of North 35 degrees, 11.52 minutes and longitude of West 81
degrees, 12.38 minutes has been added to page B-1.
Comment
2. RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form: 270.13(d)
The permit renewal application requires that the name, address, and phone number for the legal
owner and the operator of the site be provided. Either the mailing address or the phrase "same as
reported in section 7" needs to be added to the application (Part C, page 2, line 9).
5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Main: 919-828-3150 Fax: [phone]
www. tresolutions. corn

RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Page 2
Response to Comments May 12, 2006
Response
A revised Part C, page 2 is attached that includes the street address of 4801 York Highway,
Gastonia, NC 28053.
Comment
3. Part A Permit Application: 270.13(1)
The Part A permit application must contain all the elements identified in 40 CFR 270.13(1). One
element that is required on the topographic map are the property boundaries. The property
boundaries should be surveyed such that the meets and bounds of the property can be included
on the map (Figure A-12).
Response
Figure A-12 presents the property boundaries as defined by the Gaston County Tax Map and are
considered accurate. As such, no changes have been made to Figure A-12.
Comment
4. Part A Permit Application: 270.13(1)
The topographic map provided in the permit renewal application is a photocopy of the actual
map. As a consequence, the vertical scale is no longer accurate and the original markings (e.g.,
contour line intervals, surrounding water bodies) are difficult to read. The map can only be used
on a gross scale to identify and evaluate the surrounding features. Finally, some elements (e.g.,
the one -mile radius) did not copy and are absent from the map. Provide the actual topographic
map with all the required elements identified in 40 CFR 270.12(1).
Response
An original color copy of the site topographic map (Figure A-11) has been included in this
revision, including the one -mile radius, which was absent on the original map.
Comment
5. Section E. Groundwater monitoring system: 265.91
A groundwater monitoring system must be designed and installed such that it is capable of
yielding representative groundwater samples. Table E-1 lists the wells that have been installed at
A.B. Carter, Inc., along with the screened interval within a given aquifer zone, well construction,
top of casing elevation, and total depth.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Texts/Response to Comments TRc
Customer -Focused Solutions

RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Page 3
Response to Comments May 12, 2006
Please update Table E-1 to include all the monitoring and recovery wells that have been installed
at the site. Add a column to the table that shows the geologic unit being monitored for each of
the wells. A key defining well nomenclature should also be presented. Specifically, define
"PM" which is used as a well designation.
Response
Table E-1 has been updated to include all the monitoring wells and recovery wells that have been
installed at the site. A column has been added to the table that shows the hydrogeologic unit
being monitored for each of these wells. A key defining well nomenclature has also been
included on Table E-1, however, no definition for wells with a PM designation was found in the
previous literature.
Comment
6. Section E. Groundwater monitoring data: 270.14 (c)(1)
Section E-4.3 cites that "Water table elevation data have been collected at this site since the mid-
1980's so the direction of groundwater flow is well documented and well understood." Section
E-4.3 does not reference a summary tabulation of groundwater elevation data. This data is
required as part of the permit renewal process and must be provided. It is only necessary to
provide data for the past five years. The data may be provided in Excel spreadsheet format.
Graphical representations of the data are not necessary.
Response
Section E-4.3, page E-4 has been revised to reference a new table, designated Table E-3, that
presents groundwater elevation data collected from September 1, 2001 to March 14, 2006.
Comment
7. Section E. Groundwater monitoring data: 270.14 (c)(1)
Figure E-1 illustrates groundwater flow. As shown in Figure E-1, the generalized groundwater
flow direction is to the southeast. Monitoring wells MW-17 and PM-1, which are situated
northeast of the two excavated sludge beds, have been sporadically characterized by groundwater
contamination. Because MW-17 and PM-1 are not positioned along the reported groundwater
flow path, the sporadic presence of contamination in these two wells requires explanation (e.g., a
seasonal component to groundwater flow). If upon further investigation, it is concluded that
there is a northeasterly component of groundwater flow. Figure E-1 should be amended to
illustrate the findings.
LIAB Caster/RCRA Pen -nit Comments/
Response Texts/Response to Conunents TIRC
Customer -Focused Solutions

RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Page 4
Response to Comments May 12, 2006
Response
The purpose of Figure E-1 is to present the well locations, not the groundwater flow direction.
The contour lines shown on this figure are ground surface contours, not groundwater surface
elevation contours. The figure does include a generalized groundwater flow direction arrow but
this should not be confused with the more detailed potentiometric surface map included as Figure
E-4. To avoid confusion, a revised Figure E-1 has been included with this submittal that does
not have the generalized groundwater flow direction arrow.
Based upon a review of historical groundwater elevation data, there has not been a seasonal
variation of groundwater flow since the recovery system was placed into operation in 1989.
Quarterly groundwater elevation data were collected from 1989 until 2002 and have been
collected semi-annually since. The typical groundwater flow direction has been easterly as
shown on Figure E-4. The sporadic presence of contamination in wells MW-17 and PM-1 may
be related to previous groundwater flow patterns prior to initiation of corrective action that could
have allowed migration of nickel from the now closed sludge beds toward the topographic draw
that lies north east of the beds.
Comment
Section E. Groundwater monitoring data: 270.14 (c) 2) and 270.141(2)
After reviewing Section 4.3 of the permit renewal application, it has been concluded that the
hydraulic conductivity in the uppermost aquifer in the horizontal direction has been adequately
determined. However, determination of the hydraulic conductivity in the vertical direction has
not been satisfactorily explained. The text of the permit renewal application reads as follows
(page E-8): The ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity indicates nearly isotropic
conditions with:
Kv=1.SKH
The source for this statement and any supporting data are not provided in the permit renewal
application. Please provide the supporting reference.
Response
This information was garnered from Section C - Groundwater Information of A.B. Carter's Post
Closure Permit dated August 1, 1994. This reference has been included on revised page E-4 of
the permit application.
LIAB Calter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Texts/Response to Cotmnents TRC
Customer -Focused Solutions

RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Page 5
Response to Comments May 12, 2006
Comment
9. Section E. Groundwater monitoring data: 270.14 (5)
On page E-22 of the permit renewal application and in Attachment 3 of the Sampling and
Analysis Plan, A.B. Carter proposes to shut down the groundwater recovery system for a period
of three years to evaluate whether the plume is at steady state conditions. This proposal is based
on an evaluation of the accumulated monitoring data which indicates (1) that nickel is the only
constituent of concern at the facility, (2) that the nickel concentrations have generally decreased
to an asymptotic level, and (3) that the groundwater contamination plume is not migrating. As
part of system shut down, the facility proposes to reduce groundwater monitoring from
semiannual to annually.
The proposed changes will be considered when the facility presents as part of its pen -nit renewal
application a more defined description of the impacted affected aquifer system. This description
should clearly illustrate the groundwater flow direction (or directions, if there are seasonal
variations) across the site. Groundwater flow nets should be constructed that illustrate
groundwater flow in both plan view and cross section. A narrative explanation that supports the
groundwater flow illustrated in the flow nets should also be included.
The horizontal and vertical dimensions of the contaminant plume should be superimposed on the
flow nets. In the vertical plane, please include the lithological profile. If applicable, please
identify any preferential flow paths or highly transmissive zones that may influence contaminant
migration.
Figure E-7 illustrates nickel concentrations in monitoring wells located along cross section A -A'.
Nickel concentrations increase with depth. Specifically, nickel concentrations increase by at
least one order of magnitude with depth and are greatest in the bedrock aquifer. If the
groundwater flow information presented in the permit application is correct, then what is the
source of nickel in monitoring wells MW-7 and MW-8? The groundwater flow path should be
re-evaluated in light of the observed nickel migration patterns.
Response
Vertical and horizontal groundwater flow nets with the nickel plume superimposed were
generated and are included as Figures E-5 and E-6 of the revised submittal. Additionally, Table
E-4 is included which provides a summary of vertical hydraulic gradients. A review of historical
groundwater elevation data does not suggest any seasonal variation of groundwater flow at the
site.
The highest concentration of nickel has historically been present in wells MW-7 and MW-8.
Both of these wells are located between the closed sludge beds and the recovery well network
and monitor the partially weathered rock (PWR) and bedrock zones. The recovery wells extract
water from the PWR and the upper bedrock zones, which are typically the most transmissive
zones in the Piedmont hydrogeological setting that exists at the A.B. Carter facility. Therefore, it
is believed that the recovery wells have pulled the nickel -impacted water downward into the
LJAB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Texts/Response to Coimnents 7RC
Customer -Focused Solutions

RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Page 6
Response to Comments May 12, 2006
PWR and upper bedrock where it is detected in wells MW-7 and MW-8. However,
downgradient of the recovery well network, nickel has never been detected above the 2L
standard. Therefore, it is believed that while the recovery wells have pulled the nickel plume
downward, the impacted water has been removed by the recovery system and retarded via
natural attenuation processes. This is included in Section 5.0 - Contaminant Plume Description
on revised page E-15.
Comment
10. Section E. Corrective Action: 270.14(c) 8)(iii) and 264.100
As described in Section 6.3.3 (page E-19), the facility is undergoing corrective action with four
recovery wells (RW-10, RW-13, RW-14, and RW-15). The permit renewal application does not
detail the monitoring wells used to evaluate remediation system effectiveness. Furthermore,
potentiometric surfaces presented in the permit renewal application do not demonstrate that the
pumping wells are effectively creating a barrier to the downgradient flow of groundwater. The
permit renewal application should include a section detailing the monitoring wells used to
evaluate corrective action effectiveness, recovery well pumping rates, and radii of influence.
The section should include an evaluation to determine whether recovery well pumping is
drawing the nickel contamination down into the bedrock aquifer.
Response
A. B. Carter has used the monitor wells outlined in the existing Post Closure Permit to evaluate
remediation system effectiveness since the system was put into operation in 1989. The
monitoring wells historically used to evaluate remediation system effectiveness, recovery well
pumping rates and radii of influence are included on the revised Section E, page E-21. Based
upon this evaluation it is determined that recovery well pumping has drawn nickel contamination
down into the upper bedrock aquifer, upgradient of the recovery well network. However, there is
no indication that the nickel plume has bypassed the recovery well network.
Comment
11. Section E. Corrective Action: 270.14(c)(8)(iii) and 264.100
Figure E-5 of the permit renewal application illustrates the potentiometric cross section. RW-14
is illustrated on Figure E-5. Although the text of the permit indicates that RW-14 is a pumping
well and is the most representative of all the recovery wells installed at the site, the
potentiometric lines illustrated on Figure E-5 are nearly vertical suggesting that pumping is not
occurring or that the cone of influence is miniscule. Either correct Figure E-5 to show an
accurate depiction of the cone of influence in cross section or amend the text to explain the
current status of corrective action at the site.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit Cominents/
Response Texts/Response to Comments rac
Customer -Focused Solutions

RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit Renewal Page 7
Response to Comments May 12, 2006
Response
New Figure E-5 illustrates a site cross -sectional flow net with the nickel plume superimposed.
The cone of influence of RW-14 is minimal, however it does create a downward vertical
gradient, which has caused the nickel -impacted groundwater to migrate downward, impacting
wells MW-7 and MW-8. However, down gradient of the recovery well network, an upward
hydraulic gradient exists in monitor well cluster MW-16A/MW-16R and nickel has never been
detected in this monitor well cluster above the 2L standard. Therefore, it is believed that the
recovery well network, and likely more importantly natural attenuation processes, have and are
currently containing the nickel plume.
L:/AB Caner/RCRA Peilnit Comments/
Response Texts/Response to Comments TIRC
Customer -Focused Solutions

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
LIST OF REVISED PAGES
SECTION
PAGE
Tableof Contents................................................................................................ ii through v
(all)
A SITE ID AND INFORMATION FORM...............................................A-1&A-2
FIGURES
A-11 Topographic Map
B FACILITY DESCRIPTION.....................................................................B-I&B2
E GROUNDWATER MONITORING .......................................... E1 through E29
(Entire Section)
TABLES
E-1 Well Construction Details
E-3 Historical Groundwater Elevation Data
E-4 Summary of Vertical Hydraulic Gradient Calculations
FIGURES
E-1 Well Locations, May 10, 2006
E-4 Shallow Potentiometric Surface, March 14, 2006
E-5 Vertical Flow Net & Nickel Plume, March 14, 2006
E-6 Horizontal Flow Net & Nickel Plume, March 14, 2006
KCERTIFICATION............................................................................................ K-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
PAGE
A SITE ID AND INFORMATION FORM ........................................................ A-1
FIGURES
A -I I Topographic Map
A-12 Facility Map
A-13 Aerial Photograph
B FACILITY DESCRIPTION.............................................................................B-1
1.0
GENERAL DESCRIPTION....................................................................B-1
2.0
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP............................................................................B-3
3.0
TRAFFIC INFORMATION....................................................................B-4
4.0
LOCATION INFORMATION................................................................B-4
4.1 Seismic Consideration.................................................................B-4
4.2 Floodplain Standard..........................:..........................................B-4
4.3 Additional North Carolina Location Standards ...........................B-4
5.0
ADDITIONAL NORTH CAROLINA REQUIREMENTS ....................B-5
TABLE
B-1 Total Constituents for Sludge Samples (9/85)
FIGURES
B-1 Site Location
B-2 Facility Location and Surrounding Area
B-3 Fire Protection Systems
B-4 A.B. Carter Drawing — Sewers
B-5 Tax Map Denoting Former Hazardous Waste Management Areas
D LANDFILL STANDARDS.............................................................................. D-1
E GROUNDWATER MONITORING................................................................E-1
1.0
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................E-1
2.0
DESCRIPTION OF WELLS...................................................................E-1
3.0
MONITORING DATA............................................................................E-1
4.0
GENERAL HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION ......................................E-3
4.1 Site Geology.................................................................................
E-3
4.2 Site Hydrogeology.......................................................................
E-3
4.3 Groundwater Flow Direction and Rate ........................................
E-4
4.3.1 Aquifer Characteristics....................................................
E-4
5.0
CONTAMINANT PLUME DESCRIPTION ........................................E-15
6.0
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM..................................................E-16
6.1 Characterization of Contamination............................................E-16
6.2 Concentration Limits Under 264.94(a)......................................
E-16
LIAB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/ 11
Response Text/Table of Contents

SECTION
7.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
PAGE
6.3
Corrective Action Plan...............................................................E-17
6.3.1 Plans for Removing and Handling of Hazardous
Wastes............................................................................
E-18
6.3.2 Recovery System Design...............................................E-18
6.3.3 Recovery System Installation and Performance ............E-20
6.4
Description of Treatment Technologies.....................................E-22
6.5
Recovery System Operation and Maintenance ..........................
E-23
GROUNDWATER
MONITORING PROGRAM .................................
E-24
7.1
Description of Monitoring System.............................................E-24
7.2
Description of sampling and Analysis Procedures ....................E-26
7.2.1 Sampling Frequency......................................................
E-27
7.2.2 Sample Collection Techniques ......................................E-27
7.2.3 Procedures for Annual Determination of Groundwater
Flow Rate and Direction ................................................
E-27
7.3
Monitoring Data and Statistical Analysis Procedures ...............E-28
ABANDONMENT PLAN.....................................................................E-28
8.1
Introduction................................................................................
E-28
8.1.1 Abandonment Procedures ..............................................E-28
8.1.2 Abandonment Cost Estimate..........................................E-29
TABLES
E-1 Well Construction Details
E-2 Historical Groundwater Data
E-3 Historical Groundwater Elevation Data
E-4 Summary of Vertical Hydraulic Gradient Calculations
FIGURES
E-1 Well Locations, May 10, 2006
E-2 Geologic Cross -Section (Sheet 1 of 2)
E-3 Geologic Cross -Section (Sheet 2 of 2)
E-4 Shallow Potentiometric Surface, March 14, 2006
E-5 Vertical Flow Net & Nickel Plume, March 14, 2006
E-6 Horizontal Flow Net & Nickel Plume, March 14, 2006
E-7 Nickel Iso concentrations, Cross -Section, February 7, 2005
E-8 Recovery System Flow Schematic Diagram
E-9 Treatment System Schematic Diagram
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment E-1
Attachment E-2
Attachment E-3
Well Construction Diagrams
City of Gastonia Pretreatment Permit #1049
Sampling and Analysis Plan
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Table of Contents
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued
SECTION
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
PAGE
FHAZARD PREVENTION.................................................................................F-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................... F-1
1.1 Barrier.......................................................................................... F-1
1.2 Means to Control Entry................................................................ F-1
1.3 Warning Signs..............................................................................F-1
2.0 INSPECTION SCHEDULE.................................................................... F-1
I POST CLOSURE PLAN AND FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS .................I-1
1.0
POST CLOSURE PLAN..........................................................................I-1
1.1 Closure of Sludge Ponds...............................................................I-1
1.2 Closure of Lower Surface Impoundments ....................................
I-2
2.0
SPECIFIC POST CLOSURE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ........................
I-3
2.1 Surface Impoundments.................................................................I-3
3.0
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN........................................I-5
3.1 Cap Integrity.................................................................................
I-5
3.2 Monitoring Wells..........................................................................
I-6
3.3 Ground Water Recovery Wells.....................................................I-6
3.4 Post -Closure Contact....................................................................I-7
4.0
NOTICES REQUIRED FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES .........................I-7
4.1 Notice to Local and Land Authority.............................................I-7
4.2 Notice in Deed to Property...........................................................I-8
5.0
POST CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE......................................................I-8
6.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FOR POST CLOSURE -
LETTEROF CREDIT..............................................................................
I-9
TABLE
I-1 Post Closure Care Cost Estimate
FIGURE
I-1 Closure Design
J OTHER FEDERAL LAWS.............................................................................. J-1
KCERTIFICATION............................................................................................ K-1
LIAB Carter/RCRA Pennit Continents/ 1v
Response Text/Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued
SECTION
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
PAGE
L CORRECTIVE ACTION....................................................................................L-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
...................................................................................
L-1
2.0 CURRENT STATUS OF SWMUS.........................................................
L-2
2.1
SWMU #1 Sludge Pond...............................................................L-2
2.2
SWMU #2 Treated Process Wastewater Storage Pond ...............L-3
2.3
SWMU #3 Domestic Treated Wastewater Storage Pond ............
L-4
2.4
SWMU #4 Equalization and Neutralization Tanks .....................L-4
2.5
SWMU #5 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) .........................L-6
2.6
SWMU #6 Chromate (Trivalent) Treatment Tank ......................L-7
2.7
SWMU #7 Chromate (Hexavalent) Treatment Tank...................L-8
2.8
SWMU #8 Spray Irrigation Field................................................L-8
2.9
SWMU #9 Chromate Scrubber Tank...........................................L-9
2.10
Previous Location of the Chromate Scrubber Tank ..................L-10
2.11
SWMU #11 Designated Temporary Storage of Hazardous
Waste..........................................................................................
L-11
2.12
SWMU #12 Sludge Cake Storage Bin .......................................
L-11
2.13
SWMU #13 Hazardous Waste Drum Storage Area (Inactive) ..L-12
2.14
SWMU #14 Hazardous Waste Drum Storage Area (Inactive) ..L-13
3.0 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................L-13
N SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE -AND FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION...... N-1
LIAB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/ v
Response Text/Table of Contents

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION A
SITE ID AND INFORMATION FORM

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
OMB#: 2050-0034 Expires 11/30/2005
SEND COMPLETED
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FORM To:
The Appropriate state or
EPA Regional Office.
RCRA SUBTITLE C SITE IDENTIFICATION FORM
1. Reason for
Reason for Submittal:
Submittal
(See instructions
❑ To provide Initial Notification of Regulated Waste Activity (to obtain an EPA ID Number for hazardous
on page 14.)
waste, universal waste, or used oil activities)
❑ To provide Subsequent Notification of Regulated Waste Activity (to update site identification information)
MARK ALL BOX(ES)
THAT APPLY
❑ As a component of a First RCRA Hazardous Waste Part A Permit Application
;4 As a component of a Revised RCRA Hazardous Waste Part A Permit Application (Amendment # )
❑ As a component of the Hazardous Waste Report
2. Site EPA ID
EPA ID Number
Number (page 15)
1N IC ID 10 10 13 11 1514 1011 10 I
3. Site Name
Name:
(page 16)
A. B. CARTER, INC.
4. Site Location
Street Address: 4801 York Highway
Information
(page 16)
City, Town, or Village: GASTONIA
State: NC
County Name: GASTON
Zip Code: 28053
5. Site Land Type
(page 15)
Site Land Type: Private ❑ County ❑ District ❑ Federal ❑ Indian ❑ Municipal ❑ State ❑ Other
6. North American
A.
B.
Industry
333292
Classification
System (NAICS)
C.
D.
Code(s) for the Site
(page 15)
7. Site Mailing
Street or P. O. Box: P. 0. BOX 518
Address
(page 16)
City, Town, or Village: GASTONIA
State: NC
Country: U.S.
Zip Code: 28053
8. Site Contact
First Name: ERNEST
MI: W.
Last Name: SUMNER
Person
(page 16)
Phone Number:704-865-1201 Extension:
Email address:
9. Operator and
A. Name of Site's Operator:
Date Became Operator (mm/dd/yyyy):
Legal Owner
A. B. CARTER
07/26/1969
Operator Type: X Private ❑ County ❑ District ❑ Federal ❑ Indian ❑ Municipal ❑ State ❑ Other
of the Site
(pages 16 and 17)
B. Name of Site's Legal Owner:
Date Became Owner (mm/dd/yyyy):
A. B. CARTER
07/26/1969
Owner Type: ()(Private ❑ County ❑ District ❑ Federal ❑ Indian ❑ Municipal ❑ State ❑ Other
EPA Form 8700-23 (Revised 312005) Page 1 of 3

Revision 1
N C D 0 0 3 1 5 4 May 12, 2006
EPA ID NO: I I I I I I I I l I I I 10,110 J OMB#: 2050-0034 Expires 11/30/2005
9. Legal Owner
(Continued)
Address
StreetorP.O.Box: 4801 York Highway
City, Town, or Village: Gastonia
State: North Carolina
Country: USA
Zip Code: 28053
10. Type of Regulated Waste Activity
Mark "Yes" or "No" for all activities; complete any additional boxes as instructed. (See instructions on pages 18 to 21.)
A. Hazardous Waste Activities
Complete all parts for 1 through 6.
Y ❑ N ❑ 1. Generator of Hazardous Waste
Y ❑ N ❑ 2. Transporter of Hazardous Waste
If "Yes", choose only one of the following - a, b, or c.
Y ❑ N ❑ 3. Treater, Storer, or Disposer of
❑ a. LQG: Greater than 1,000 kg/mo (2,200 lbs./mo.)
Hazardous Waste (at your site) Note:
of non -acute hazardous waste; or
A hazardous waste permit is required for
JV b. SQG: 100 to 1,000 kg/mo (220 - 2,200 lbs./mo.)
this activity.
of non -acute hazardous waste; or
Y ❑ N ❑ 4. Recycler of Hazardous Waste (at your
❑ c. CESQG: Less than 100 kg/mo (220 lbs./mo.)
site)
of non -acute hazardous waste
Y ❑ N ❑ 5. Exempt Boiler and/or Industrial
In addition, indicate other generator activities.
Furnace
If "Yes", mark each that applies.
Y ❑ N ❑ d. United States Importer of Hazardous Waste
❑ a. Small Quantity On -site Burner
Exemption
Y ❑ N ❑ e. Mixed Waste (hazardous and radioactive) Generator
Cl b. Smelting, Melting, and Refining
Furnace Exemption
Y ❑ N ❑ 6. Underground Injection Control
B. Universal Waste Activities
C. Used Oil Activities
Mark all boxes that apply.
Y ❑ N ❑ 1. Large Quantity Handier of Universal Waste (accumulate
5,000 kg or more) [refer to your State regulations to
Y ❑ N ❑ 1. Used Oil Transporter
determine what is regulated]. Indicate types of universal
If "Yes", mark each that applies.
waste generated and/or accumulated at your site. If "Yes",
❑ a. Transporter
mark all boxes that apply:
❑ b. Transfer Facility
Generate Accumulate
Y ❑ N ❑ 2. Used Oil Processor and/or Re -refiner
a. Batteries ❑ ❑
If "Yes", mark each that applies.
b. Pesticides ❑ ❑
❑ a. Processor
❑ b. Re -refiner
c. Thermostats ❑ ❑
d. Lamps ❑ ❑
Y ❑ N ❑ 3. Off -Specification Used Oil Burner
e. Other (specify) ❑ ❑
Y ❑ N ❑ 4. Used Oil Fuel Marketer
f. Other (specify) ❑ ❑
If "Yes", mark each that applies.
❑ a. Marketer Who Directs Shipment of
g. Other (specify) Cl ❑
Off -Specification Used Oil to
Off -Specification Used Oil Burner
❑ b. Marketer Who First Claims the
Y ❑ N ❑ 2. Destination Facility for Universal Waste
Used Oil Meets the Specifications
Note: A hazardous waste permit may be required for this activity.
EPA Form 8700-23 (Revised 3/2005)
Page 2 of 3

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION A
FIGURES

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION B
FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION B
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Facility Name: A.B. Carter, Inc.
Name of Owner: A. B. Carter, Inc.
Location/Address: 4801 York Highway, Gastonia, NC 28053
Latitude/Longitude: North 350, 11.52', and longitude of West 810112.38'
New or Existing Facility: Existing Facility
Type of Facility: Onsite
Nature of Business: A. B. Carter, Inc.'s plant in Gastonia, Gaston County, North
Carolina (Figures B-1 and B-2), manufactures ring travelers used in the textile industry,
knotters, splicers, stampings, screw machine parts, and wire. The plant operates a
wastewater treatment facility for the management of wastewater from electroplating and
wire cleaning operations.
Average flow of wastewater from these operations is approximately 1,000 gallons per
day. This waste stream formerly (up until July 23, 1986) was treated in four batch
treatment tanks. The first two 5,800-gallon tanks were used for reduction of hexavalent
chromium present in the wastewater. The wastewater was then directed to one of the
second stage 15,000-gallon batch treatment tanks, neutralized with sodium hydroxide,
and settled. Originally, the wastewater was neutralized with lime until 1986, when A. B.
Carter, Inc. replaced lime with sodium hydroxide. The supernatant was drained to the
treated process wastewater storage pond (SWMU #2).
The settled sludge from the batch treatment tanks was drained to one of the former sludge
ponds (SWMU #1). This sludge was listed as EPA hazardous waste F006, per 40 CFR
Part 261.31. The basis for the hazardous waste designation is the potential for the
presence of cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and cyanide (complexed) from the
electroplating operations. According to tests done on samples of the raw process
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit B-1
Continents/Response Text/
Revised Pages/Pennit Section B

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
wastewater from the chromium process and nickel process, cyanide and cadmium were
not present in significant concentrations. Test results for sludge samples are shown in
Table B-1.
TABLE B-1
TOTAL CONSTITUENTS FOR SLUDGE SAMPLES (9/85)
A priority pollutants analysis was done on the treated process wastewater from the treated
process wastewater storage pond. This analysis showed all parameters, with the
exception of four trace metals, were below detection limits.
An additional pond is used for storage of treated domestic wastewater (SWMU #3). This
wastewater is periodically discharged to the spray irrigation field (SWMU #8). The
discharge is permitted under the Waste Water Spray Irrigation Permit #WQ0004270.
On July 22, 1986, A. B. Carter, Inc. upgraded and permitted the existing on -site
wastewater treatment system, under NPDES #NC0063835, to include a sludge
dewatering system. At that time, A. B. Carter had closed the two existing sludge ponds
and the treated process wastewater storage pond at the facility. Obtaining an NPDES
permit enabled A. B. Carter to discharge treated wastewater and transport sludge from the
treatment of its electroplating and wire cleaning wastewater off -site to approved disposal
facilities, thus, eliminating the facility's treatment, storage, or disposal status under
RCRA. In July 2003, A. B. Carter obtained a permit (#1049) from the City of Gastonia to
discharge process wastewater into the sanitary sewer collection system which is treated at
the Crowders Creek wastewater treatment plant. .
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Pennit B-2
Conunents/Response Text/
Revised Pages/Pennit Section B

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION E
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

SECTION E
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
A.B. Carter has performed groundwater monitoring at the Gastonia facility since the early
1980s. Throughout the history of this site, A.B. Carter has complied with the RCRA
process in completing the various requirements such as interim status monitoring,
detection monitoring, completion of statistical analyses, development and implementation
of a groundwater assessment plan, completion of an RFI, etc. Data generated during the
history of this site have been presented, in detail, in a variety of documents submitted to
the regulatory agencies. Because the data have been previously presented and well
documented they are not repeated in this permit.
Therefore, this section presents pertinent information regarding historical data trends,
current groundwater and contaminant plume conditions, description of the existing
groundwater recovery and treatment system and a description of the proposed corrective
action plan and groundwater monitoring program based upon an evaluation of the data
collected over the past 22 years.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF WELLS
Listed below on Table E-1 are all the wells at A.B. Carter, Inc., top of casing elevations,
and screen elevations, where available. Well construction diagrams are included in
Attachment E-1. Figure E-1 illustrates the well locations relative to the closed SWMUs.
3.0 MONITORING DATA
A.B. Carter's initial groundwater monitoring started in 1983 with four wells located near
the now -closed SWMUs being monitored. Throughout the history of this site, A.B.
Carter has complied with the RCRA process in completing the various requirements such
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-1

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
as interim status monitoring, detection monitoring, development and implementation of a
groundwater assessment plan, completion of an RFI, etc. Data generated during the
history of this site have been presented, in detail, in the variety of documents submitted to
the regulatory agencies. Because the data have been previously presented and well
documented they are not repeated in this permit. Instead, a data summary table (Table
E-2) of the constituents analyzed as required by the previous Part B Permit is presented.
Additionally, time vs. concentration plots are presented on Table E-2 to more easily
allow evaluation of the data through time. The data presented in the tables and graphs
range in time from March 1997 through February 2005.
The groundwater sampling was conducted in accordance with the revised Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) of the A.B. Carter RCRA Part B Post Closure Permit. In past years,
monitoring at the site was conducted on a quarterly basis. Beginning with the September
2002 event, monitoring was reduced to a semi-annual basis. Groundwater samples were
collected from wells BG-2, PM-1, PM-2, PM-3, PM-4, MW-7, MW-7A, MW-8,
MW-8A, MW-9, MW-9A, MW-11, MW-11A, MW-12, RW-13, RW-14, RW-15,
MW-16R, MW-16A, MW-17, and MW-18. Point of compliance wells are MW-7A,
MW-8, MW-8A, MW-11A, MW-12 and MW-12A. Background wells are BG-1 and
BG-2.
Each groundwater sample was analyzed for Be, Ca, Co, Cr, Fe, Ni, K, Na, Sr, chloride
and sulfate as required in Appendix A of the renewed RCRA Part B Post -Closure Permit
dated June 6, 1995. Additionally, groundwater samples were also analyzed for Appendix
IX constituents in point of compliance wells MW-7A, MW-8, MW-8A, MW-I IA, MW-
12 and MW-12A on an annual basis. Measurements of pH, specific conductivity and
temperature were collected in the field.
Nickel was identified as the primary constituent of concern during previous
investigations and monitoring activities. The NCAC 2L standard for nickel in
groundwater is 0.10 mg/1. Review of the historical data tables and concentration vs. time
plots indicate that the following wells have consistently exceeded the 2L standard for
LIAB Caiter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-2

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
nickel over the past several years: MW-7, MW-7A, MW-8, MW-8A, PM-1 and PM-3.
Other wells with sporadic detections of nickel above the 2L standard are MW-9, MW-9A
and MW-17. Samples from recovery wells RW-13, RW-14 and RW-15 also contain
nickel above the 2L standard, as expected.
Other constituents that have been analyzed, as required by the permit, have not been
consistently detected above their 2L standards, are consistent with typical background
concentrations or they are simply indicator parameters.
4.0 GENERAL HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
4.1 Site Geolo2y
The A. B. Carter site slopes gently to the east decreasing in elevation from approximately
750 feet above mean sea level on the western property boundary to approximately 690
feet above mean sea level at the eastern boundary. The site is underlain by a deep residual
soil derived from the chemical and physical weathering of a biotite gneissoid granite
parent material. Figures E-2 and E-3 show three geologic cross -sections based on data
obtained from well and boring logs.
4.2 Site Hydromeology
The A. B. Carter facility is located on the east side of a low broad ridge oriented in a
north/south direction. The east side of the ridge slopes to an unnamed tributary of
Crowders Creek. This tributary is a perennial stream of low flow and low energy
(approximately 1 to 3 cfs). It appears to have developed in a uniformly weathered
material and is characterized by a wide floodplain.
Several drainage washes extend laterally from the tributary. One large wash located just
north of the former waste management area trends southeasterly. The wash deepens and
L:/AB Caster/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-3

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
widens as it approaches the tributary and there are ground water seeps at the edge of the
floodplain.
Another smaller wash is located just south of the former waste management area that
trends in a northeasterly direction. The former waste management area is located
approximately 1,000 feet east of the topographic ridge and 500 feet west of the tributary.
The general topographic and drainage features of the site are shown on topographic maps
A-11 and B-1.
4.3 Groundwater Flow Direction and Rate
The ground water table at this site varies in depth from approximately 35 feet in well
BG-1 near the topographic ridge to ground surface at the flood plain where it discharges
to the unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek. Table E-3 presents groundwater elevation
data from September 1, 2001 to March 14, 2006. As shown on Figure E-4, the
generalized direction of groundwater flow is easterly. Figure E-5 presents a vertical flow
net with the nickel plume superimposed for data collected on March 14, 2006. Figure E-6
shows the horizontal flow net and nickel plume for data collected on March 14, 2006.
Water table elevation data have been collected at this site since the mid-1980s so the
direction of groundwater flow is well documented and well understood. Based upon
many years of water level elevation data there is .no apparent seasonal variation of
groundwater flow patterns. Aquifer testing and modeling was performed in the 1980s
and details were included in Section C - Groundwater Information of A.B. Carter's Post
Closure Permit dated August 1, 1994
4.3.1 Aquifer Characteristics
The principle aquifer characteristics, which influence the capacity of an aquifer to
store and transmit ground water, are the hydraulic conductivity and porosity.
There are numerous methods for estimating these parameters including laboratory
analysis on field samples and in -situ field tests. The reliability of the various test
LJAB Caiter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-4

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
procedures is related to both to the type and number of tests performed and to the
site -specific hydrogeology. In order to best define the aquifer properties at the
A.B. Carter site, several different methods were employed.
4.3.1.1 Hydraulic Conductivity
"Hydraulic conductivity" is a quantitative term used to define the water -
transmitting characteristic of an aquifer medium. It is expressed in terms
of a unit length per unit time.
The aquifer medium at the A. B. Carter site consists of weathered
materials, primarily silty -sands and sandy -silts overlying fractured igneous
rock. By consulting data presented in Groundwater, Freeze and Cherry,
1979, it was anticipated that the calculated range of hydraulic
conductivities at the site would be within the range of 10-2 to 10-6 cm/sec.
4.3.1.1.1 Pump Test
A pump test was conducted in the area immediately downgradient
of the former waste management area. Pumping well 10 was used
for aquifer pump testing and was screened 30 feet within the zone
of saturation. Two-inch observation wells 9 (located 9.7 feet away
and screened in the saprolite) and well 9A (located 16 feet away
and screened at the water table surface) were used to observe head
changes in the aquifer in response to pumping. A constant
discharge test was run over a 24-hour duration at a rate of 4.5
gallons per minute. Discharge rate was monitored using an inline
totalizing flow meter.
The data was analyzed using the Theis Solution curve matching
technique. Although specifically developed for application to
confined aquifer systems, the curve matching technique is
LIAB Catter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-5

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
applicable for. unconfined aquifers with certain modifications and
specially developed type curves.
Typically, observed water level drawdowns in piezometers
adjacent to pumping wells in unconfined aquifers tend to decline at
a slower rate than predicted by the Theis Solution. It has been
demonstrated that there are three distinct segments to a time-
drawdown curve for unconfined conditions. The first segment
involves early response of an unconfined aquifer, which is similar
to that of a confined aquifer. During the second segment, the
effects of gravity drainage are felt and the curve tends to flatten out
deviating from the standard Theis curve. Finally, during the last
segment, the time-drawdown data again begins to conform to a
standard Theis type curve. A specific series of type curves have
been developed for the response of an unconfined aquifer. These
curves account for the delayed yield that is characteristic of an
unconfined aquifer.
The time-drawdown curves generated from the observed data were
curve matched against delayed yield type curves for partially
penetrating observation wells, developed by Stallman (USGS
Profession Paper 708).
Using the matchpoint parameters for these specific curves, the
transmissivity was calculated using the following equation:
T _ W(u) OQ
S
where:
T = Aquifer Transmissivity
Q = Pumping Rate
LIAB Caiter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-6

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
W(u) = Matchpoint Parameter
S = Drawdown
The aquifer storativity coefficient can be calculated using the early
time-drawdown data, however, this is not a meaningful parameter
for an unconfined aquifer. Of more interest for an unconfined
aquifer is the specific yield, which can be calculated from a curve
match of the latter time-drawdown data using the following
equation:
Sy = Tt 2
ur
where:
Sy = Specific Yield
T = Aquifer Transmissivity
T = Time
R = Radius from Pumping Well
U = Matchpoint Parameter
The time-drawdown data also allows for the determination of the
ratio between horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity using
the following relationship:
Z=b �KvIKII)
where:
Z = Coefficient (From Type Curve)
R = Radius from Pumping Well
b = Saturated Thickness of Screened Well
K„ = Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity
Kl, = Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-7

Revision I
May 12, 2006
An analysis of the observed time-drawdown data from wells 9 and
9A by the above technique yielded the following estimated aquifer
characteristics for the A. B. Carter site:
Transmissivity = 260-300 ft2/day
Specific Yield = 0.01-0.02
The response of the aquifer indicated by the time-drawdown
curves was as expected. Well 9 showed the classical delayed yield
response. The estimated transmissivity and specific yield values
are representative of the typical range of values for the defined
medium.
Based on a saturated penetration depth of 30 feet for the pumping
well, the estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity can be
calculated from:
T = Khb
where:
T = Transmissivity
Kh = Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
b = Saturated Thickness of Unconfined Unit
Based on the above relationship the calculated range of horizontal
hydraulic conductivities is:
KI, = 3.1 x 10-3 to 3.5 x 10-3 cm/sec
The ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity indicates
nearly isotropic conditions with:
Kv = 1.5 KI,
LJAB Caller/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-8

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
4.3.1.1.2 SlugTesting
esting
A total of four slug tests were conducted at the site. The tests were
conducted in pennanent monitoring wells screened at various
intervals. The slug test data was analyzed using the Hvorslev
method (Groundwater, Freeze and Cherry, 1979) where the
horizontal hydraulic conductivity is defined by:
_ rz In (L/R)
K'' 2 LTo
where:
K1, = Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity
r = Radius of Well Casing
L = Length of Well Screen
R = Radius of Screen Pack
To = Basic Lag Time
The results of the analysis yielded the following estimates of
hydraulic conductivity:
1DI
C.._...�2.
__ .,fir .... __
,,5 .-'..,•�..
...
_,,(�iY/
7
Rock
1.0 x�10-
7A
Saprolite
3.8 x 10-
8
Rock
1.1 x 10
9
Saprolite
3.5 x 10
4.3.1.1.3 Estimation by Grain Size
There are numerous empirical relationships, which can be used to
relate the grain -size distribution of a granular porous media to
hydraulic conductivity. In addition, there are several more integral
equations, which take into account porosity.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Permit Camnents/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-9

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
Using sieve analysis data collected from various samples taken
during the installation of the test borings and calculated porosities,
estimates of hydraulic conductivity were calculated.
A very simple but widely accepted empirical equation for
estimating hydraulic conductivity from a grain size distribution is
the following power -law relation developed by Hazen:
K = Ad102
where:
dio = Grain size diameter at which 10% by weight of the soil
particles are finer
A = Coefficient equal to 1.0 for K in the units of cm/ see and dio
in min
The Hazen power -law relationship is most valid for a uniformly
graded medium but can provide rough estimates. For non -uniform
soils, a more integrative predictive equation for estimating
hydraulic conductivity is the Kozeny-Carmen equation.
The estimated values of hydraulic conductivity calculated from
these equations based on grain size distributions ranged from 1.2 x
10-4 to 6 x 10-6 cm/sec.
The table below provides a summary for the estimated values of
hydraulic conductivity for each of the methods of analysis. The
table shows estimated values at or in the vicinity of the specified
wells and their respective hydrogeologic units.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-10

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
GiR
?L(
c
��
,...w..�.
_ ..�_.. a
�,.....,...
HDV�.iIJ��I3l�a�J.:9iTTE:F�
_ ...ate.......\ >..< i
., .. �._
y�V'se��rv"�'j''�.
.. ,� .m. ,:A.. .a.
FP�>CTMI'TEST
a
7
Rock
---
1.0x 10-3 ---
7A
Saprolite
4.0 x 10-6
3.8 x 10-4 - - -
8
Rock
1.0 x 10-4
1.1 x 10-4 - - -
9
Saprolite
1.4 x 10-4
3.5 x 10-4 3.5 x 10-3
9A
Saprolite
6.0 x 10-6
- - - 3.1 x 10-3
A review of the data shows that all of the estimated values agree
favorably with the typical range of values for published hydraulic
conductivity in unconsolidated soils and rock.
The pump test and slug test results compare favorably. It was
observed during the slug tests that the hydraulic conductivity in the
rock wells were one half to one order of magnitude greater than in
the saprolite. The pump test results probably represent an average
value over the saprolite and rock units. The estimates based on
grain size distribution are more variable. Of the three methods, the
grain size distribution method is probably the least reliable and
errors of several orders of magnitude could be expected.
As a general conclusion, range of hydraulic conductivity across the
site is on the order of 10-3 to 10-4 cm/sec with the higher values
occurring in the rock.
4.3.1.1.4 Porosity
The porosity of a medium represents the percentage of void space
to total volume. The nature of the void space is characterized by
distinguishing between primary porosity, which is due to the soil
or rock matrix and secondary porosity, which is due to solution
channels or fracturing in the medium.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Pen -nit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-11

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
Typical values (Groundwater, Freeze and Cherry, 1979) or
porosity for various mediums are summarized below:
MR4 e
iUNGCIN(�IDATED D�Pt7� 15
�_, �P �� ..__
a a M
n.�
Gravel
25-40
Sand
25-50
Silt
35-50
40-70
y (Clay
6
Fractured Basalt
5-50
Karst Limestone
5-50
Sandstone
5-30
Limestone, Dolomite
0-20
Shale
0-10
Fractured Crystalline Rock
0-10
Dense Crystalline Rock
0-5
The unconsolidated medium at the A.B. Carter site consists
primarily of silty -sands and sandy -silts. These materials overlie
fractured crystalline rock.
Porosity values for materials underlying the site were determined
from bulk soil samples taken from the saturated zone. Values for
natural moisture content and bulk specific gravity were determined
in the laboratory for these samples.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit Coiunents/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-12

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
The porosity is calculated based on the following relationships:
WGS
S=
e
where:
S = Degree of Saturation in %
Gs = Bulk Specific Gravity
e = Void Ratio
and,
e
n=
1+e
where:
n = Total Porosity
e = Void Ratio
The range of values of total porosity calculated for saprolite
(Unified SM, ML) samples obtained at the site is 37.4 - 46.9%.
The porosity values calculated thus far represent a measure of the
total void space within a medium. A more meaningful term used in
calculating ground water velocities is the effective porosity (ne).
The effective porosity represents the amount of interconnected
pore space in the medium through which fluids can actually pass.
A conservative estimate of effective porosity was made for this site
by multiplying the average of total porosity values obtained from
laboratory test times 0.5. This value corresponds well with the
range of specific yield as calculated from the pumping test,
mentioned above.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-13

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
The effective porosity value used to calculate velocities within the
saprolite is shown below:
(Unified SM, ML), ne = 20%
The bedrock was assumed to have a secondary porosity of 5%.
4.3.1.2 Rate of Ground Water Movement
The rate of ground water movement is calculated using a ground water
velocity equation derived from Darcy's Law and the basic velocity
equation:
— K dh
V=--
ne dl
where:
V = ground water velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
ne = effective porosity
dh/dl = hydraulic gradient
Utilizing this equation, an estimate of the ground water velocity can be
calculated at any point at any time given that the prescribed parameters are
known.
A representative ground water flow velocity was calculated from the
February 2006 potentiometric surface map (Figure E-4) using the
observed hydraulic gradient across the site and the aquifer parameter
values mentioned previously. When assuming a hydraulic gradient of
0.030 ft/ft, a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/sec and a porosity of
20% the groundwater flow rate is calculated as 155 feet/year.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
ResponseText/Revised Permit Sect. E E-14

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
This is considered a general estimate of groundwater flow rate based upon
the site -specific aquifer parameters.
5.0 CONTAMINANT PLUME DESCRIPTION
The contaminant plume at the A.B. Carter facility is comprised of nickel concentrations
above the 2L standard. Generalized groundwater flow is from the west to the east as
shown on Figure E-4. Vertical and horizontal groundwater flow nets are presented on
Figures E-5 and E-6, respectively. These figures also illustrate the vertical and horizontal
extent of the nickel plume as of March 2006. The vertical and horizontal extent of the
nickel plume has remained basically unchanged over the past several years.
As illustrated on Figure E-6, the northern boundary of the nickel plume is located in the
vicinity of PM-1, though there have been sporadic detections of nickel slightly above the
2L standard in MW-17 over the years. The presence of nickel in PM-1 and MW-17 is
believed to be the result of migration prior to the installation of the recovery well network
because these wells have not been hydraulically downgradient of the closed sludge beds
since the recovery system became operational. The southern boundary of the plume is
near PM-3.
Historically, the highest concentrations of nickel have been detected in wells MW-7 and
MW-8, both of which monitor the partially weathered rock (PWR) and upper bedrock
zones. Both of these wells are located between the closed sludge beds and the recovery
well network. The recovery wells extract groundwater from the PWR and the upper
bedrock zones, typically the most transmissive zones in Piedmont geological settings
such at that underlying the A.B. Carter facility. Downward vertical hydraulic gradients
exist in well pairs MW-7/MW-7A, MW-8/MW-8A, MW-9/MW-9A and MW-11/MW-
11A while upward gradients are present in MW-12/MW-12A and MW-16R/MW-16A
(Table E-4). The downward gradients are likely the result of natural processes coupled
with downward influences from the recovery well network that has been operational
since 1989. The upward gradients present in the MW-12 and MW-16 well clusters are
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-15

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
most likely the natural groundwater flow patterns, based upon their topographic location
downgradient of the recovery well network.
Groundwater nickel concentrations remain undetected in downgradient monitoring wells
MW-16R (saprolite), MW-16A (PWR), PM-2 (PWR) and MW-18. This suggests that
the migration of nickel -affected groundwater is being controlled by the remediation
system and likely more importantly, natural attenuation processes.
6.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
6.1 Characterization of Contamination
Groundwater assessment and monitoring has been ongoing at the A.B. Carter facility
since the mid-1980s so the impacts to groundwater are well understood. From the
beginning of groundwater assessment and monitoring, nickel has been the primary
constituent of concern. Other constituents may be detected occasionally but their
presence is inconsistent. Table E-2 summarizes the data for all monitor wells from 1997
to February 2005. These data show that nickel is the primary constituent of concern in
groundwater at the facility.
6.2 Concentration Limits Under 264.94(a)
The proposed limit for nickel will be equivalent to the North Carolina Administrative
Code (NCAC), Subchapter 2L, effective November 2, 1993. The concentration is
established for Class GA waters in the state of North Carolina. Class GA waters as
defined in parts (1) (a), (b), and (c) of Title 15A: 02L.0201 are those that are an existing
or potential source of drinking water for humans. It applies to water in the saturated zone
in which chloride concentrations are equal to or less than 250 mg/l, and which are
considered suitable for drinking in their natural state, but which may require treatment to
improve quality related to natural conditions.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Pennit Continents/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-16

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
The concentrations were set forth under Title 15A: 02L.0202 as the maximum allowable
concentrations resulting from any discharge of contaminants to the land or waters of the
state, which may be tolerated without creating a threat -to human health or which would
otherwise render the ground water unsuitable for its intended best usage. The
concentration limit for nickel will be 0.10 mg/1 as defined in the 15A NCAC 02L
Groundwater Classification and Standards.
Sulfate is the only other constituent to be analyzed in the laboratory annually because
over 15 years of groundwater monitoring data have shown that nickel is the only
constituent of concern associated with the closed SWMUs. The 2L standard for sulfate is
250 mg/l. Every 5 years the POC wells will be analyzed for Appendix IX parameters.
Field parameters including pH, conductivity and temperature will also be measured.
6.3 Corrective Action Plan
In 1989, in compliance with 40 CFR 264.99 (h), A.B. Carter, Inc. established a corrective
action system comprised of 4 recovery wells. These recovery wells are designed to pump
and treat the affected ground water in order to comply with the Ground Water Protection
Standards established in their 1987 RCRA Part B Permit for post closure care of the
former hazardous waste management units.
The corrective action system utilizes a recovery well system (array) positioned
downgradient of the contaminant plume. Three additional ground water recovery wells
were installed in addition to pre-existing pumping Well 10. These pumping wells were
positioned at locations and completed to sufficient depths to recover impacted ground
water resulting from the former hazardous waste management units.
Recovered ground water from the recovery well array is pumped to the existing
continuous flow wastewater treatment system under the City of Gastonia Pretreatment
Permit # 1049 for contaminant removal. The initial permit was received in January 1998
and replaced NPDES permit # NC0063835. Effluent limits and monitoring requirements
LIAB Carter/RCRA Pennit Camnents/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-17

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
include analysis of nickel. A copy of the Pretreatment Permit is included as Attachment
E-2 at the end of this section.
The effectiveness of the recovery system with respect to chemical attenuation of water-
borne constituents is monitored by evaluation of the analytical laboratory results from the
compliance monitoring program.
6.3.1 Plans for Removing and Handling of Hazardous Wastes
The A.B. Carter facility is operating under a Post Closure Permit. The hazardous
wastes were removed from the subject SWMUs in accordance with an approved
Closure Plan in 1987. Upon completion of the closure, the ponds were backfilled
with clean fill and compacted. A vegetative cover was installed and is currently
being maintained to prevent loss of cover materials due to erosion. An
impermeable cap was not used as it would only delay the time required for
recovery and eventual clean-up of the waterborne contamination.
6.3.2 Recovery ystem Design
The design of the recovery system was based on existing field data and results of
computer simulations used to position recovery wells. The advantage of this
approach was that several recovery system configurations were evaluated
allowing the system to be optimized with respect to selected design parameters.
During simulations, pumping rates and well spacing were varied while hydraulic
conductivity, hydraulic gradient, saturated thickness, and effective porosity were
held constant.
The theoretical basis for early conceptual modeling was presented by Keely and
Tsang in Groundwater, Vol. 21, No.6, pp. 701-714 in a paper titled "Velocity
Plots and Capture Zones of Pumping Centers for Ground Water Investigations."
The original computer code was modified so output could be easily interpreted in
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-18

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
a two-dimensional presentation. Model output consisted of an x-y coordinate
array with ground water flow directions plotted at nodal points. This arrangement
allowed the flow path of a give particle of water to be traced so that spatial
relationships between pumping wells and capture zones could be examined.
The design constants mentioned above were obtained from previous field work.
An average hydraulic conductivity of 9.35 ft/d (saprolite) was obtained from
aquifer test data described earlier. A description of how the hydraulic conductivity
values were determined may be found in Section E-4.3.1. Hydraulic gradient was
determined from actual water level and potentiometric map information. Although
the pre -pumping phreatic surface at the A. B. Carter site was in a constant state of
change, the hydraulic gradient in the vicinity of the contaminant plume was
observed to vary between 0.03 and 0.04. Calculation of an average value yields
0.0034 and this value was the basis for conceptual design considerations. The
saturated thickness was considered the distance bounded by the phreatic surface
and the hard rock surface (50/1" blow count). Using soil boring, well construction
data, and water level data, an average saturated thickness of approximately 30 feet
was obtained. Effective porosity was assumed to be 0.2 as described in Section
E-4.3.1.1.3.
Numerical modeling was used as the basis for detailed design of the ground water
recovery system. Results of early conceptual modeling were used as the basis for
modeling the effectiveness of the system in the vertical and horizontal
dimensions. Computer code used for detailed design modeling was the USGS
Modular Three- Dimensional Code (MODFLOW) developed by McDonald and
Harbaugh (1984). A complete description of the detailed design modeling effort is
presented by the December 30, 1987, Groundwater Recovery System
Effectiveness and Detailed Design report submitted to NCDEHNR.
According to the modeling results, a target pumping rate for each well in the
recovery system was set at 4.5 GPM. This value was based on the behavior of
LJAB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-19

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
pumping Well No. 10 in the pump calibration test conducted on January 29, 1987.
Based on these data, it is estimated that continuous pumping can be maintained at
a rate of approximately 7 GPM. Assuming 7 GPM the maximum permissible rate,
4.5 GPM was chosen as a design parameter so a range of variations in pumping
well flow rates would exist in the event aquifer heterogeneities had some effect on
the actual system behavior.
Using the design parameters mentioned model iterations were performed to
establish the optimum well spacing between each recovery well. Ground water
flow fields were determined for each iteration and the efficiency of the induced
capture zone was evaluated. Following several iterations, it was determined that a
well spacing of 40 feet was necessary to capture contaminated ground water
upgradient of the recovery system. Modeling results, used in combination with
the early nickel isopleth snaps indicated that the final design of the recovery
system would be sufficient to recovery impacted waters downgradient of the
former sludge basin area.
6.3.3 Recovery System Installation and Performance
The installation of the recovery system was performed in 1988 per results of
detailed design modeling. The positions of recovery wells 10, 13, 14, and 15 are
shown on Figure E-1. Although well 10, installed some time prior to final design
of the recovery system, was completed at a total depth of approximately 55 feet,
results of system effectiveness modeling indicated that use of this well for ground
water recovery would not significantly impact system performance.
Recovery wells were completed at a total depths less than or equal to 80 feet
below ground surface, depending on horizontal position. The bottom of the screen
for wells 13, 14, and 15 was set at approximately 635 feet mean sea level, well 10
had been previously set at an elevation of approximately 662 feet mean sea level.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-20

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
Figure E-8 shows a flow schematic diagram of the recovery system as it was
installed. Each well was equipped with a submersible stainless steel pump, level
control, associated valves, and a totalizing flow meter so extraction rates could be
monitored and adjusted. During first quarter 1992, the control system for the
recovery well pumps was upgraded to a common control panel that incorporates
individual hour meters and cycle counters for each well installation.
A ground water monitoring system monitors the hydraulic effectiveness of the
recovery system as outlined in the previous Post Closure Permit. This monitoring
network includes point of compliance wells 7A, 8, 8A, 11A, 12, 12A and
additional monitor wells BG-1, BG-2, PM -I, PM-2, PM-4, MW-7, MW-9, MW-
9A, MW-11, RW-13, RW-14, RW-15, MW-16R, MW-16A, MW-17, and MW-
18. Water level elevation data have been collected from these wells for many
years and reported to NCDENR as required by the RCRA Post Closure Permit.
The generalized groundwater flow direction has remained easterly with no
significant seasonal variation.
Though modeling indicated the recovery wells should each produce
approximately 4.5 gallons per minute, recovery wells RW-13, RW-14 and RW-15
typically produce a combined flow rate of approximately 2 gallons per minute
(gpm). Recovery well RW-10, which was not originally designed as a recovery
well and extracted from the saprolite, has not operated for several years. Because
of the relatively low flow rate, the measurable radii of influence of the recovery
network are minimal as shown on Figures E-4, E-5 and E-6. However, as of
February 2006, 12 million gallons of water has been recovered since the system
became operational.
LIAB Caiter/RCRA Permit Cotrunents/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-21

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
6.4 Description of Treatment Technologies
The wastewater treatment system installed by A.B. Carter, Inc., is designed for
precipitation of metals and subsequent dewatering of sludge. The system is designed to
treat 30,000 gallons of wastewater during an 8-hour period, and discharge the treated
water into the unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek east of the property under City of
Gastonia Pretreatment Permit # 1049.
The treatment begins with chromium reduction by lowering pH to approximately 2.5 with
sulfuric acid and addition of sodium bisulfite to reduce the chromium from the
hexavalent to the trivalent form. This process is controlled by automatic pH and
oxidation-reduction potential monitoring and feed pump control.
Because chromium does not appear to be present in the ground water, and would be in
the trivalent form if it were present, the reduction process has been bypassed for ground
water treatment.
In the wastewater treatment system, chromium -bearing wastewater is then combined with
the non -chromium wastewater in an I1,000-gallon equalization tank. The pH is remotely
monitored in this tank, with the pH sensor controlling addition of caustic soda to raise the
pH to an adjustable level (normally 8.80 to 10.5). A final pH adjustment using COZ
lowers the final pH to 6.0 — 9.0 prior to discharge to the city sewer system.
Level controllers in the neutralization tank operate two discharge pumps, which transport
the neutralized water to a flocculation tank. These pumps are controlled such that they do
not operate when the water level is below a preset point in the neutralization tank, one
pump operates at a mid -range level, and both pumps operate at high level.
The soluble metals in the wastewater become insoluble at elevated pH levels. Constant
addition of liquid polymer into the slow -mixed flocculation tank creates larger
conglomerate particles.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit Cointnents/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-22

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
The wastewater flows by gravity from the flocculation tank to a circular gravity settling
clarifier and final pH adjustment. Clear overflow from the clarifier is discharged via
pipeline to the city sewer. Settled sludge is periodically drained from the bottom of the
clarifier to a sludge holding tank. The sludge is then pumped from the holding tank to a
plate and frame filter press for dewatering. Dewatered sludge is hauled to an approved
hazardous waste disposal facility. Filtrate from the press is recycled to the neutralization
tank.
Engineering drawings and specifications for the treatment facility were submitted to
NCDEHNR with the 1987 submittal of the post -closure permit application for the
facility. Figures E-8 and E-9 present the groundwater recovery system piping and
instrumentation diagram and a schematic of the treatment system, respectively.
6.5 Recovery Svstem Operation and Maintenance
Proper operation of the ground water recovery system is maintained,on a'daily inspection
basis. Cycle counters, hour meters, and flow meters for the individual recovery wells are
inspected in order to determine if pump systems are operating within tolerable limits.
Inconsistencies between cycle counters and meter readings are used to trigger non -routine
maintenance activities.
Routine maintenance is performed on the recovery system on a monthly basis (prior to
quarterly compliance monitoring events). During routine maintenance, pumps are pulled
and cleaned, replaced if necessary, and metering equipment is checked for proper
operation. Spare pumps are kept in reserve for immediate replacement of malfunctioning
parts. This assures that down time for maintenance is kept to a minimum and the
accumulation of iron bacteria is controlled. Logs of periodic inspections are maintained
for reference.
A detailed operation and maintenance (O&M) manual dated June 22, 1988 and entitled
"Groundwater Recovery and Treatment System Operation and Maintenance Manual,
A.B. Carter, Inc. Gastonia, North Carolina, is kept at the facility and followed.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-23

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
7.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
Groundwater monitoring data has been collected at the A.B. Carter facility since the mid-
1980s so aquifer conditions at the site are well documented. Quarterly groundwater
monitoring was performed till September 2002 when the sampling frequency was
reduced to semi-annual because the data had been consistent over several years.
Historical data from March 1997 to February 2005 have been summarized in Table E-2
of this permit. An evaluation of the data shows that nickel is the only constituent of
concern at the facility and the plume appears to be in a static position. Because the site is
well understood, the data suggests the nickel concentrations have generally decreased to
an asymptotic level and the plume is not migrating, A.B. Carter proposes shutting off the
groundwater recovery system for a period of 3 years to evaluate whether the plume is at
steady state conditions. During this time, select wells will be sampled on an annual basis
to monitor any changes in concentrations or plume movement and to collect data for
evaluation of natural attenuation processes and rate. If during the 3-year period it appears
the plume is migrating at a rate that would cause offsite groundwater impacts above the
2L standard for nickel, the recovery system would be re -started. However, if the plume
remains relatively static with the recovery system off, and the evaluation of natural
attenuation parameters suggests the plume will not migrate offsite, the recovery system
would be abandoned after the 3-year evaluation period is complete. Details on the
proposed sampling and analyses are presented below.
7.1 Description of Monitoring System
From the late 1980s until 2002 an extensive network of 24 groundwater monitoring and
recovery wells was sampled quarterly. Since 2002, this same network has been sampled
on a semiannual basis. The wealth of historical groundwater quality and flow direction
data site allows for refinement of the previous monitoring system. This refinement
includes:
• reducing the number of monitoring wells in the monitoring network,
L:/AB Caster/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-24

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
• reducing the sampling frequency from semi-annual to annual,
• performing laboratory analysis for nickel only, except for two wells that will
also be sampled for sulfate, and
• performing Appendix IX analysis on the point of compliance wells every 5
years.
Historically, the point of compliance (POC) wells for the closed sludge beds (SWMU
#1) have been MW-7A, MW-8, MW-8A and the POC wells for closed treated process
wastewater pond (SWMU #2) have been MW-11A, MW-12 and MW-12A.
Groundwater monitoring data from 1997 to February 2005 shows that samples from wells
MW-11A, MW-12 and MW-12A have never contained nickel, the site's primary
constituent of concern, above the 2L standard of 0.10 mg/l. Other monitored constituents
have generally remained below their respective groundwater standards with the exception
of beryllium and sulfate. Beryllium does not have a 2L standard but the established
Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL) is 0.004 mg/l. Beryllium has been detected in
MW-12A and MW-I IA at concentrations just above the MCL of 0.004 mg/l but has also
been detected at similar concentrations in background wells BG-1 and BG-2.
Additionally, background soil samples collected for previous site investigations contained
beryllium. Therefore, the presence of this metal in the POC wells is not considered
indicative of a release from the SWMU but is considered background. Sulfate has been
detected in recent years at concentrations above the 2L standard in POC wells MW-8,
MW-11A and in recovery well RW-14. Wells MW-8 and MW-11A will be sampled for
sulfate as well as nickel. RW-14 will not be sampled for either constituent.
Chromium and iron have also been detected above their 2L standards in various wells on
occasion, but have also been routinely detected at similar concentrations above 2L
standards in the background wells. Therefore, the presence of these metals at low
concentrations in the groundwater is considered naturally occurring background levels.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-25

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
Based upon the historical data the following monitoring system will be used:
• Point of Compliance Wells for SWMU #1 — Excavated Sludge Beds will
remain the same: MW-7, MW-7A, MW-8 and MW-8A.
• Point of Compliance Well for SWMU #2 — Excavated Storage Pond will be
MW-11A. Wells MW-12 and MW-12A, which were previously used as POC
wells, will be dropped from monitoring because no constituents have been
detected above the groundwater standards in these wells for many years.
• Monitoring Wells will be: PM -I, PM-2, MW-18, MW-16R and MW-16A.
Data from these wells will provide additional information on plume geometry
and movement. Wells MW-18, PM-2, MW-16R and MW-16A are positioned
downgradient of the plume but have never contained nickel above the 2L
standard. They will be used as sentinel wells to detennine if the plume
migrates once the existing recovery system is shut down.
• Background Well: Well BG-2 will serve as the background well. Previously,
well BG-1 was also sampled as a background well. However, this well is
approximately 1000 feet upgradient of the plume and on the opposite side of
the broad topographic ridge where the plant is located. Therefore, BG-1 is not
considered a viable choice for monitoring background groundwater quality
relative to the closed SWMUs.
• Monitoring Schedule: Monitoring will be performed annually in June for a
period of three years from issuance of the permit to evaluate groundwater
quality after the recovery system is shut down. After three years the data will
be evaluated to determine the fate and transport of the nickel plume without
the recovery system in operation. At that time, a determination will be made
on whether to permanently abandon the recovery system or turn the system
back on based upon the data evaluation.
Well construction details are provided in Table E-1 and well construction diagrams are
included in Attachment E-1. Figure E-1 illustrates the well locations relative to the
closed SWMUs and Figure E-6 shows the well locations relative to the nickel plume.
7.2 Description of Sampling and Analysis Procedures
This section briefly outlines the sampling and analysis procedures that will be employed.
A more detailed Sampling and Analysis Plan is included as Attachment E-3. This plan
will be kept onsite at A.B. Carter and followed during each sampling event.
L:/AB Carter/RCRA Pennit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-26

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
7.2.1 Sampling Frequency
Wells will be monitored on an annual basis in June of each year. Results of the
annual groundwater sampling will be available within 60 days of sampling.
7.2.2 Sample Collection Techniques
Samples will be collected utilizing the USEPA Region I "Low Stress (low flow)
Purging and Sampling Procedure for the Collection of Ground Water Samples
from Monitoring Wells", July 30, 1996. This document details the entire
sampling process including: scope and application, equipment, equipment
calibration, water level measurement, field indicator parameters monitoring,
purging, sample collection, post sample activities, decontamination and field
quality control. A copy of this document is included in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (Attachment E-3) for easy reference in the field.
For more information on the following, please refer to the Sampling and Analysis
Plan (Attachment E-3).
• Sample Preservation and Shipment
• Analytical Procedures
• Chain -of Custody Control
• Procedures for Determining Groundwater Elevations
7.2.3 Procedures for Annual Determination of Groundwater Flow Rate and
Direction
Groundwater flow velocity and direction will be monitored on an annual
basis. Groundwater elevation data will be collected from all onsite
monitoring wells during the annual sampling event. An updated
potentiometric surface map will be produced and included in the annual
UAB Carter/RCRA Permit Comments/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-27

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
groundwater monitoring report. Groundwater flow velocity will be
calculated from hydraulic gradients determined from the potentiometric
map and known site hydraulic conductivity data presented in this permit.
7.3 MonitorinI4 Data and Statistical Analysis Procedures
Because the proposed Groundwater Protection Standard sets concentration results to a
known concentration level in Section 6.2, A.B. Carter will no longer use statistics for
comparing "background" to the point of compliance wells. With a known concentration
limit, the upper tolerance level is already set at that known concentration limit vs. being
relative to "background". Therefore, the point of compliance wells will be either above
or below the proposed concentration limits and subsequently, exceeding or not exceeding
the Groundwater Protection Standards.
8.0 ABANDONMENT PLAN
8.1 Introduction
Part IV.G.8.(d) of A. B. Carter's RCRA permit states, "The pennittee shall include an
abandonment plan for implementation following the completion of corrective action for
the remedial action system." The following plan addresses abandonment of the wells and
the transfer lines utilized in the system.
8.1.1 Abandonment Procedures
Upon completion of the corrective action program the remedial action system will
be abandoned utilizing the following procedures:
A. Excavation of Header and Transfer Piping - All piping used in the
recover system will be excavated, steam cleaned and disposed of in a
sanitary landfill.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Pennit Cormnents/
Response Text/Revised Permit Sect. E E-28

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
B. Removal of Pump and Equipment From Wells - All equipment will be
removed from the wells, thoroughly cleaned and disposed of properly.
C. Abandoning Recovery Wells - All recovery wells will be abandoned in
accordance with North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15,
Subchapter 2C.0I13
8.1.2 Abandonment Cost Estimate
The following cost estimates for abandonment of the corrective action system
have been prepared using 2005 U.S. dollars.
Abandonment Cost Estimate
Drill Mobilization
$ 400
Close 23 wells with grout
$ 6,000
Excavate, Remove, Backfill header pipe
$ 2,000
Steam Clean/Disposal of header pipe
$ 2,500
Field Supervision (3 weeks)
$ 12,000(*)
TOTAL $22,900(**
NOTE: (*) Full-time field supervision may not be, required.
(**) Estimates made using 2005 dollars.
The abandonment cost estimate is based on construction costs using 2005 dollars.
Full-time field supervision may not be required; however, the abandonment
procedure will be completed within three weeks.
LIAB Carter/RCRA Permit Conunents/
Response Text/Revised Pennit Sect. E E-29

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION E
TABLES

Table E-1. Well Construction Details. A.B. Carter, Inc. Gastonia, NC
zz
BG-1
2" PVC
754.91
715.91-705.91
49
Sa rolite
BG-2
2" PVC
737.59
697.59-687.59
50
Sa rolite
MW-1
No Data
MW-2
No Data
MW-3
No Data
MW-4
No Data
MW-6
2" PVC
725.57
Not Available
41.27
Sa rolite
MW-7
2" SS
723.57
671.63 - 656.63
66.94
Bedrock
MW-7A
2" SS
724.14
698.78 - 686.78
37.36
Sa rolite
MW-8
2" SS
717.37
665.07 - 650.07
67.30
Bedrock
MW-8A
2" SS
719.76
689.70 - 674.7
45.06
Sa rolite
MW-9
2" PVC
718.13
682.52 - 672.52
45.61
Sa rolite/PWR
MW-9A
2" PVC
718.72
693.77 - 683.77
34.95
Sa rolite
MW-11
2" SS
723.77
668.77 - 653.77
70.00
Bedrock
MW-11A
2" SS
724.24
699.24 - 684.24
40.00
Sa rolite
MW-12
2" SS
726.95
668.95 - 653.95
73.00
PWR/Bedrock
MW-12A
2" SS
728.15
703.15 - 668.15
37.25
Sa rolite
MW-16R
2" PVC
706.38
681.38 - 671.38
35.00
Sa rolite
MW-16A
2" PVC
706.37
644.00 - 634.00'
50.00
Sa rolite/PWR
MW-17
2" PVC
723.21
673.21 - 683.21 '
50.00
Sa rolite/PWR'
PM-1
2" PVC
721.38
691.38 - 681.38
40.00
Sa rolite
PM-2
2" PVC
710.09
665.09 - 655.09
55.00
PWR
PM-3
2" PVC
719.32
689.32 - 679.32
40.00
Sa rolite
PM-4
2" PVC
720.74
695.74 - 685.74
35.00
Sa rolite
PZ-1
2" PVC
717.55
683.05 - 680.55
37.00
Sa rolite
PZ-2
2" PVC
715.91
680.41 - 677.91
38.00
Sa rolite
PZ-5
No Data
RW-10
4" PVC
719.22
691.35-661.35
57.87
PWR
RW-13
4" PVC
722.69
695.19 - 634.69
88.00
PWR/Bedrock
RW-14
4" PVC
721.58
696.58 - 635.58
86.00
PWR/Bedrock
RW-15
4" PVC
714.13
696.63 - 636.13
78.00
PWR/Bedrock
MW: Monitoring Well PZ: Piezometer
BG: Background Well RW: Recovery Well
PM: Unknown, Installed to be used during post -closure monitoring PWR: Partially Weathered Rock
1 Approximate, based upon available information.
Notes: According to original permit application prepared in 1994, MW-3 went dry following the closure of the pond.
Well MW-4 is no longer used because it is located in or adjacent to a drainage ditch.
L:\AB Carter\RCRA Permit Comments\ TRC Project No. 38238-0090-00000 Table E-I
Tables\Table E-1

TABLE E-3. Historical Ground Water Elevation Data, A.B. Carter, Inc., Gastonia, NC
Well
TOC
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
9/1/2001
6/28/2002
3/27/2003
9/2/2003
2/9/2004
BG-1
754.91
46.40
708.51
48.00
706.91
48.59
706.32
43.29
711.62
41.74
713.17
BG-2
737.59
42.85
694.74
44.05
693.54
43.78
693.81
40.21
697.38
40.45
697.14
MW-6
725.57
37.10
688.47
37.87
687.70
38.58
686.99
34.67
690.90
35.80
689.77
MW-7
723.57
38.85
684.72
36.68
686.89
35.94
687.63
33.68
689.89
34.81
688.76
MW-7A
724.14
35.98
688.16
36.73
687.41
35.72
688.42
33.60
690.54
34.76
689.38
MW-8
717.37
30.80
686.57
31.63
685.74
30.60
686.77
28.45
688.92
29.62
687.75
MW-8A
719.76
32.58
687.18
33.15
686.61
31.67
688.09
29.78
689.98
30.94
688.82
MW-9
718.13
31.52
686.61
32.28
685.85
30.13
688.00
28.90
689.23
30.08
688.05
MW-9A
718.72
31.98
686.74
32.65
686.07
30.36
688.36
29.24
689.48
30.37
688.35
MW-11
723.77
35.20
688.57
35.85
687.92
34.90
688.87
32.27
691.50
33.15
690.62
MW-11A
724.24
35.20
689.04
35.80
688.44
34.96
689.28
32.11
692.13
33.14
691.10
MW-12
726.95
35.95
691.00
36.80
690.15
36.32
690.63
32.97
693.98
33.62
693.33
MW-12A
728.15
37.15
691.00
-
Dry
-
Dry
34.17
693.98
34.87
693.28
MW-16R
707.38
26.08
681.30
26.50
680.88
23.64
683.74
24.13
683.25
24.32
683.06
MW-16A
706.37
25.52
680.85
26.05
680.32
23.42
682.95
23.95
682.42
23.90
682.47
MW-17
723.21
34.70
688.51
35.35
687.86
34.23
688.98
32.15
691.06
33.06
690.15
MW-18
718.65
31.72
686.93
32.25
686.40
30.85
68T80
28.88
689.77
29.88
688.77
PM-1
721.38
33.15
688.23
33.90
687.48
32.88
688.50
30.81
690.57
31.76
689.62
PM-2
710.09
25.15
684.94
25.85
684.24
23.92
686.17
22.49
687.60
23.43
686.66
PM-3
719.32
32.05
687.27
32.60
686.72
31.22
688.10
29.19
690.13
30.33
688.99
PM-4
720.74
32.45
688.29
33.07
687.67
32.11
688.63
29.52
691.22
30.49
690.25
PZ-1
717.55
31.05
686.50
31.80
685.75
32.71
684.84
28.41
689.14
29.66
687.89
PZ-2
715.91
29.18
686.73
29.85
686.06
30.73
685.18
26.47
689.44
27.54
688.37
RW-10
719.22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RW-13
722.69
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RW-14
721.58
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RW-15
1 714.13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Groundwater and top of casing elevation measured relative to an assumed site datum.
TOC = top of casing
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
LAAB Carter\RCRA Permit Comments\ Table E-3
Tables\Historical GW Elevations TRC Project No. 38238-0090-00000 Page 1 of 2

TABLE E-3. Historical Ground Water Elevation Data, A.B. Carter, Inc., Gastonia, NC
Well
TOC
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
Depth to
Water
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
8/30/2004
2/7/2005
8/22/2005
3/14/2006
BG-1
754.91
42.26
712.65
42.05
712.86
41.95
712.96
43.35
7176
BG-2
737.59
40.75
696.84
40.73
696.86
40.48
697.11
41.17
696.42
MW-6
725.57
36.22
689.35
36.04
689.53
36.06
689.51
36.15
689.42
MW-7
723.57
35.44
688.13
35.17
688.40
35.29
688.28
35.14
688.43
MW-7A
724.14
35.13
689.01
34.96
689.18
35.04
689.10
35.06
689.08
MW-8
717.37
30.29
687.08
29.93
687.44
30.20
687.17
29.76
687.61
MW-8A
719.76
31.28
688.48
31.08
688.68
31.28
688.48
31.06
688.70
MW-9
718.13
30.51
687.62
30.21
687.92
30.58
687.55
30.13
688.00
MW-9A
718.72
30.69
688.03
30.53
688.19
30.91
687.81
30.49
688.23
MW-11
723.77
33.55
690.22
33.33
690.44
33.40
690.37
33.54
690.23
MW-11A
724.24
33.46
690.78
33.36
690.88
33.29
690.95
33.50
690.74
MW-12
726.95
33.98
692.97
33.99
692.96
33.77
693.18
34.29
692.66
MW-12A
728.15
35.22
692.93
35.27
692.88
35.01
693.14
35.55
692.60
MW-16R
707.38
25.37
682.01
24.38
683.00
25.36
682.02
25.65
681.73
MW-16A
706.37
24.99
681.38
24.02
682.35
24.98
681.39
24.38
681.99
MW-17
723.21
33.62
689.59
33.31
689.90
33.35
689.86
33.54
689.67
MW-18
718.65
30.28
688.37
29.96
688.69
30.22
688.43
30.05
688.60
PM-1
721.38
32.37
689.01
32.04
689.34
32.13
689.25
32.25
689.13
PM-2
710.09
24.09
686.00
23.57
686.52
24.07
686.02
23.54
686.55
PM-3
719.32
30.66
688.66
30.46
688.86
30.62
688.70
30.47
688.85
PM-4
720.74
30.85
689.89
30.68
690.06
30.71
690.03
30.84
689.90
PZ-1
717.55
30.00
687.55
29.77
687.78
30.12
687.43
29.67
687.88
PZ-2
715.91
27.88
688.03
27.67
688.24
28.00
687.91
27.67
688.24
RW-10
719.22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RW-13
722.69
-
-
-
-
-
-
55.23
667.46
RW-14
721.58
-
-
-
-
-
-
34.71
686.87
RW-15 1
714.13 1
67.15
646.98
Groundwater and top of casing elevation measured relative to an assumed site datum.
TOC = top of casing
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
LAAB Carter\RCRA Permit Comments\ Table E-3
Tables\Historical GW Elevations TRC Project No. 38238-0090-00000 Page 2 of 2

Table E-4 Summary of Vertical Hydraulic Gradient Calculations, A.B. Carter, Inc., Gastonia, NC
Revision 1
May 12, 2006
Well Pairs
MW-7
MW-7A
MW-8
MW-8A
MW-9
MW-9A
MW-11
MW-11A
MW-12
MW-12A
MW-16A
MW-16R
TOC Elevation (MSL-ft)
723.57
724.14
717.37
719.76
718.13
718.72
723.77
724.24
726.95
728.15
706.37
707.38
Mid -Screen Depth (MSL-ft)
664.13
692.78
657.57
682.2
677.52
688.77
661.27
691.74
661.45
683.65
645.38
674.88
SWLE (ft) (3/13/06)
688.43
689.08
687.61
688.70
688.00
688.23
690.23
690.74
692.66
692.60
681.99
681.73
Change in SWLE (ft)
-0.65
-1.09
-0.23
-0.51
+0.60
+0.26
Change in Mid -Screen
Elevation (ft)
28.65
24.63
11.25
30.47
22.20
29.50
Vertical Gradient
-0.023
-0.044
-0.02
-0.017
+0.027
+0.009
SWLE - Static Water Level Elevation
( - ) - Negative value indicates downward vertical gradient
LAAB Carter\RCRA Permit Comments\
Tables\Vertical Hydraulic Gradient TRC Project No. 38238-0090-00000 Table E-4

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION E
FIGURES

r<
BG-1
711.56
MANUFACTURING
BUILDING
LEGEND
662.35
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (Fr-MSL)
POTEMTIOMETRIC CONTOUR (Fr-MSL)
/698
,-700
GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR (Fr-MSL)
/
/
POINT OF COMPLIANCE WELL
0
PIEZOMETER
Q
RECOVERY WELL
MONITORING WELL
MW = MONITORING WELL
PZ = PIEZOMETER
I \ BG = BACKGROUND WELL
\ RW = RECOVERY WELL
1
- - - - (REVISION 1, MAY 12, 2006)
�-, 6A
i
i
\
f1 \
I /
i
J
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 50 25 0 50 I
I �
Corporation 5540CENTERVIEWDR.
SUITE 100
RALEIGH, N.C. 27606
[phone]
o p
^o poi
DATE 27 MARCH 2O06
FACE
TRC PROJ./ 36238.0060
DWG NAME
Pa tentiom ®tric_3-06. dwa
SCALE
FIGURE:
HORIZONTAL
RTAL
VERTICAL
E-4
N/A

A
VERTICAL
a 'd:
SCALE
I rn
= 740
CLAY
= 720
- 710
(0
0)
c0
= 700
0.019
= 690
6807/ /
� rn
. rn
660 / 1
= 650
= 640
—05.
0
MW-8
PM-3 l<
", '$MW-18
TRC Envu"o-om(s)Mfl
5540 CENTERVIEW DR.
SUITE 100
RALEIGH, N.C. 27606
[phone]
VERTICAL
SCALE
740
730
720
710
= 700
= 690
= 680
= 670
660
= 650
= 640
LEGEND
—688—
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
(FT—MSL) DASHED WHERE
INFERRED
'
WELL SCREEN INTERVAL
MW = MONITORING WELL
PZ = PIEZOMETER
BG = BACKGROUND WELL
PWR = PARTIALLY WEATHERED
ROCK
RW = RECOVERY WELL
FLOWNET
<0.01
NICKEL CONCENTRATION IN mg/L
NICKEL PLUME
(REVISION 1, MAY 12, 2006)
DATE 09 MAY 2006
TRC PRWJ 38238.0080
DWG FIE NAME
GW—X—Section R NickeL3-06dNg
SCALE RGURE:
HORIZOWTAL-
IE-5
VERTICAL
N/A

�O
i
\ I=XTENT
I M PACT
S
LEGEND
682.35
GROUNDWATER E HATION (FT—MSL)
/69a
POTEMIIOMEfRIC CONTOUR (FT—MSL)
i1p0
GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR (Fr—MSL)
i
FLOWNEf
POINT OF COMPLIANCE WELL
0 PIEZOMETER
QQ RECOVERY WELL
ids MONITORING WELL
MW = MONITORING WELL
PZ = PIEZOMETER
BG = BACKGROUND WELL
RW = RECOVERY WELL
E3 NICKEL PLUME
y-16A I (REVISION 1, MAY 12, 2006)
i
MANUFACTURING
BUILDING \
i
i
I \
1 \
i 1
J
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 50 25 0 50 I I
I
1'=100'
n row
TRC fir l
CO3rpQrajjon 5540 CENTERVIEW DR. UME
SUITE 100
RALEIGH, N.C. 27606
[phone]
DATE: 08 MAY 2006
TRC PROJ.B 38238.0090
DWG FILE NAME
Fkmnot R PotenU mmeWc 3-06 dva
SCALE
AGURE:
HORIZONTAL•
VERTICAL
l&6
N/A

Revision 1
May 12, 2006
SECTION K
CERTIFICATION

SECTION K
CERTIFICATION
(Revision 1, May 2006)
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations".
Date: O Signature:
Ernest W. Sumner
Vice President
A.B. Carter, Inc.
Q\Documents and Settings\STEVEN WILLIAMS\Local SettingsWemporary Intemet Files\Content.IE5\414D23SXTERMIT SECTION K.doc
K-1

Nf A TF r Michael F. Easley, Governor
PY
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Cq Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
1 [ Division of Water Quality
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
March 24, 2006
AB Carter, Inc.
Post Office Box 518
4801 York Highway
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Attention: Ernest W. Sumner, Vice President
RE: Spray Irrigation Inspection Report
Permit No. WQ0004270
Gaston County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Sumner:
Enclosed you will find the report for the inspection that I conducted on March 15, 2006. The system
appears to be operating properly and is in compliance. The report should be self-explanatory however, if
you have any questions, please call me at 704/235-2183.
Sincerely,
Peginley
Hydrogeological Technician
Enclosure: Inspection Report
MAF/inspections/AB carter 3-15-06
One
Division of Water Quality / Aquifer Protection Section / Mooresville Regional Office Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Noft hOI'tllC11 arar0
l i
610 East Center Avenue., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org v V `4ii

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
GENERAL INFORMATION
City/Town/Owner: AB Carter, Inc.
Permit # WQ 0004270
Issuance Date 5/30/01
Permittee Contact Ernest Sumner-'.52-7s 3
Primary ORC: Lee Pennington #WW2 987903
24hr Contact Name Lee Pennington
Reason for Inspection
X ROUTINE
Type of inspection
Collection System
COMPLAINT
X Spray Irrigation
County: Gaston
Project Name: AB Carter, Inc.
Expiration Date 4/30/06
Telephone No. 704/865-1201 V-I w i
Backup ORC: Tirn-Bemfett==&1#g8=7-66.6
Mobil Phone No. 704/8000277 S= I r16,v `7
FOLLOW-UP OTHER
Sludge Other
Inspection Summary: (additional comments maV be included on attached pacdes)
Mr. Pennington was appointed primary ORC in January and is working to organize and
consolidate the necessary required records. The treatment system appears to be working
properly. The eroded areas on the banks of the lagoon need attention.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary yes X no
Inspector Name/Title Peggy Finley, Hydro Tech II
Tel. No. 704/235-2183 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection: 3/15/06

AIF
Spray Irrigation
Permit #WQ0004270
Type
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
_ Activated Sludge Spray, high rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
X Lagoon Spray, low rate
Reuse (Golf Courses)
Recycle /Reuse
Single Family Spray, low rate
Single Family Drip
Infiltration System
Page 2
Treatment
Y Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit.
Y Do all treatment units appear to be operational. If no, note below.
Lagoon
Primary (check any/all that apply)
Y Influent structure (free of obstructions)
Y Banks/berms (are there signs of seepage, overtopping, down cutting or erosion)
_N Vegetation (is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank
_NA _ Liner (if visible, is it intact)
NA Baffles/curtains (in need of repair),
Y Freeboard (>2 feet from overtopping)
Y*_Staff gauge (clearly marked)
_N Evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or laying down/broken)
_N_Unusual, color (very black, textile colors)
N Foam (are antifoam agents used)
—N—Floating mats (sludge, plants, inorganics)
—N—Excessive solids buildup (from bottom)
NA Aerators/mixers operational (if present).
NA Effluent structure (free of obstructions, easily accessible)
Comments: There was erosion noted on the northern and western banks of the lagoon,
probably the result of overland flow of storm water. The water should be re -directed and
the banks stabilized. A hand-held staff gauge is still used along with daily freeboard
checks.
Influent pump station
Y all pumps present, operational
Y Bar screen, maintained
_Y_Bars evenly spaced
_Y_Back-up power
_NA_Bypass
structure present
_Y
Free of excessive debris
_No_Bars
excessively corroded

i
Spray Irrigation
Permit #WQ0004270 Page 3
Aeration Basin
Y aeration pattern even across surface of unit
Y easily accessed
Clarifiers
—Y—weirs level 'Y—scum rack operational Y easily accessible
Return Pumps N/A
in place operational
Filters N/A
media present air scour operational
Residuals
storage/treatment drying beds
clear well free of solids
concrete storage pad
Comment:
Disinfection
_Y_ Is the system working? _Y ' Is the system properly maintained?
_Y Tablets Gas Liquid
Effluent Storage
X LAGOON SEPTIC TANK(s) ABOVE GROUND TANK
Number of months storage_3 Spill control plan on site
Disposal (final end use)
_N_ Is.application equipment in need repair?
Y Are buffers adequate?
_Y_ Are cover crops the type specified in permit?
_N_ Is cover crop in need of improvement?
_N Are there signs of runoff or ponding?
Comment:
OTHER

Spray Irrigation . Page 4
Permit #WQ004270
Y Are buffers adequate?
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
Y Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
Y Are restrictions for use of these areas specified?
Y Is the permit being followed?
N Is there evidence of runoff or drift?
Y Are monitoring wells called for in permit present?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?
Comments:
Recordkeeping
Y Is permit available upon request?
Are flow rates less than permitted flow?
Y Are monitoring reports present: -NDMR _ NDAR
Y Are operational logs present?
Y Are lab sheets available for review?
Y Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
Y Are all samples analyzed for the required parameters?
_N_ Are there any 2L GW quality violations?
N Are annual soil reports available?
Did the last report indicate a need for lime? Was it added?
Y Are operation and maintenance records present? Complete? YES
N Has DWQ received any complaints regarding the facility in the last 12 months?
Comment: The new ORC is working to consolidate all of the necessary records. The O &
M log is maintained very well.
Groundwater Monitoring
_Y Does the permit require groundwater monitoring? If so,
_Y_ are the monitoring wells properly installed according to the permit?
_Y_ are the wells properly secured?
_N_ are the wells damaged?

Michael F. Easl , Governor
y William G. Ross, Jr.,Secretary
I f r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0 Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
January 29, 2004
Mir. Sam Angel
A. B. Carter, Inc.
P.O. Box 518
Gastonia, NC 28053
Subject: Spray Irrigation Inspection
Permit No. WQ0004270
A. B. Carter, Inc.
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Angel:
Enclosed is the spray irrigatio-i system inspection report for the inspection conducted on January
14, 2004 by Ms. Ellen Huffman with this Office.
The inspection revealed that the wastewater treatment system is operating properly and is in good
condition; however, there is an area at the influent of the treatment plant that indicates problems with repeated
washout and standing water from rainstorm events. Gravel has been placed in the area to help remedy the
problem. It was discussed with the operator that an earthen berm placed above the area would probably deflect
storm water from area. There was a wet area below the spray field that could possibly be caused by a leak in the
piping system. The operator was made aware this. The report reflects compliance with laboratory data and
record keeping.
The enclosed report should be self-explanatory; however, if you have any questions, please
contact Ms. Huffman or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
v
D. Rex Gleason, F.E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Attachment
cc: Non -discharge compliance
h: W Q0004270abcarter0104. d oc
�TAY
" NCDENR
Mooresville Regional Office, 919 North Main Street, Mooresville, NC 28115
PHONE [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone] 623-7748

w
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Secretary
Alan W. Klemek, P.E._Director
NCDENR
NON-DISCHRGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
GENERAL INFORMATION
City/Owner A. B. Carter
Permit # WQ 0004270
Issuance Date May 30, 2001
Permittee Contact Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Name Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Cert. # SI #-14820 & WWIII #- 8204
24hr Contact Name Mr. Sam Angel
County Gaston
NPDES# N/A
Expiration Date April 30, 2006
Telephone No.704/865-1201
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
B/U ORC Charles Porter # 19607
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
Reason for Inspection
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP OTHER
Type of inspection
Collection System X Spray Irrigation Drip Irrigation Sludge Other
Inspection Summary:
All wastewater treatment units appeared to be operational. The metal aeration basin that showed
signs of deterioration during the last inspection has been taken off line. There were no odors
present at the time of inspection. The spray application field was in good condition; however,
there was a wet area below the spray field that could possibly be caused by a leak in the piping
system The operator was made aware of the area. There is an area at the influent of the
treatment plant that indicates a problem with repeated washouts and standing water from past rain
events. Gravel has been placed there to help alleviate the problem. It was discussed with the
operator that an earthen berm placed above the area would deflect storm water from area.
Plans to hook onto the City sewer system have not been implemented due to costs of piping the
effluent to the existing sewer line.
There is also a pre-treatment plant onsite that treats plant process water. This plant recovers
metals in a sludge that is shipped offsite. The effluent from this system goes to the City of
Gastonia sewer system.
Is a,follow-up inspection necessary des X no
Inspectors) Name(s)/Title(s)Ellen Huf fan /Environmental Specialist II
Telephone No. 704/663-1699 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection 01-14-04

Spra Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter 01/14/04
TVPe
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
Activated Sludge Spray, high rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
X Lagoon Spray, low rate
Reuse (Golf Courses)
Recycle /Reuse
Single Family Spray, low rate
Single Family Drip
Infiltration System
Other-25,000 gpd spray irrigation wastewater treatment system.
Treatment
Yes Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit?
Yes Do all treatment units appear to be operational? If no, note below.
Pg 2
Comments: There is an area just at the influent of the treatment plant that indicates repeated
washout and standing water from past rain events. Gravel has been placed there to help alleviate the
problem. It was discussed with the operator that an earthen berm placed above the area would
deflect storm water from area.
Influent
X All pumps present, operational N/A Bypass structure present
X Bar screen, maintained NIA Free of excessive debris
X Bars evenly spaced No Bars excessively corroded
Comments. None
Aeration Basin
Y aeration pattern was even across surface of unit
Y easily accessed
Comments: None
Clarifiers
Y weirs level Y scum rack operational Y easily accessible
Comments: None

Spray Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter 01/14/04
L_ agoon
(check any/all that apply)
Y Is influent structure free of obstructions?
N Are there signs of seepage, overtopping, or erosion on the banks/berms?
N Is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bark?
N/A Is liner intact, if visible?
N/A Are baffles/curtains in good condition?
Y Is freeboard adequate,ie.>2 feet from overtopping?
N* Is staff gauge clearly marked?
N Is there evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or flattened/broken)?
N Is there any unusual color?
N Is foaming a problem? No Are antifoam agents used?
N Are floating mats present (sludge, plants, inorganics)?
N Is there evidence of excessive solids buildup?
Y Are all aerators/mixers operational?
N/A Is effluent structure free of obstructions and easily accessible?
Pg
Comments: *The operator has a hand held staff gauge and checks the freeboard daily. This is the
effluent storage lagoon for'the spray field.
Return Pumps N/A
In place Operational
Filters N/A
Media present Air scour operational Clear well free of solids
Disinfection
Gas system X Tablet system UV system
Is storage safe? Yes Are tablets present?
Residuals
storage/treatment Drying beds Concrete storage pad Other X
Comments: When necessary, sludge is removed, de -watered, and sent to a subtitle D landfill.

Spray Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter 01/14/04
pg 4
Effluent Storaee see lagoon
X LAGOON(s) SEPTIC TANK(s) ABOVE GROUND TANK OTHER
Number of months storage 3 , Lined Y/N Y
Above ground tank N/A Aerated Mixed
In ground tank N/A Aerated Mixed
Disposal (final end use)
Is application equipment in need of repair? No Are buffers adequate? Yes
Are cover crops the type specified in permit? Yes
Signs of runoff? No. Signs of ponding? No
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
Y Is the application equipment present and operational?
N Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
Y Is permit being followed?
N Is there evidence of runoff or drift?
Y Are monitoring wells required by permit?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?
Comments: The spray application field was in good condition however; there was a wet area
below the spray field that could possibly be a leak in the piping system. The operator was made
aware of the area.
General
Y Is permit available upon request?
Y Are monitoring reports present? NDMR Y NDAR Y
Y Are operational logs present?
Y Are lab sheets available for review?
Y Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
N Are annual sons test reports available?
N Has facility received any public complaints in the last 12 months?
Comments: None

A.. B.. Carter, Inc.
P.O. Box 518
Gastonia, NC 28053
Phone [phone]
Permit WQ0004270
3 July, 2002
Ms. Ellen Huffman
Mooresville Regional Office
NCDENR
919 N. Main St.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Ms. Huffman,
r
w �
JUL 0 52002
NC IDEPT of ENV iI 3NMENT
AM NARa RsSEs
AWMESVILLEREGIONALoFfICE
In response to the NOV from your Office, June 26, 2002, the following is submitted:
1. That small aeration unit showing deterioration has been removedfrom the treatment.
system. That unit was an "add -on", built in the 70's as growth in the facility'eicceeded the
original design capacity. Due to decreased plant workforce, we believe that the original'
"factory built" package plant will provide adequate service. Should the package plant fail
to properly handle the flow, we plan to build another like unit to replace the unit removed.
2. For 12 to 15 years, we have sampled the "pond" during April, August, and December.
That change in the permit was not noted, nor communicated to.the Operators.
We have posted the Sampling requirements in a. prominent location in the waste
treatment facility,. and have personally communicated the permit's sampling criteria to
those responsible for the operation. In addition, it is posted on the ORC's desk to be
seen daily.
3. The requirement for Soil sampling also was missed by the ORC. This requirement is
noted and communicated as in paragraph two.
Soil samples were taken on 1 July 2002 and have been shipped to NC Dept. of
Agriculture for analysis.
Sincerely,
Sam Angel
ORC

.. .......
A mahl 11 'Oro,
�07 W� 0; too . nolow" on ;�v NO Roo
016: 011; wnso m sna. mvyi
&V Hop nPazaa vwg&;
OAK lwivao KA! a; 001 n�,
a U;nA Any 1:01101 -11 Mqs1z aygA va! Qn0j O� n? if AS
;on Toon. an can Pw to F! OURAw mv,
"0055; an" nvm a "K KwItAl"YOF QqcUss bm nVoy ENS" VA,
act Ww�� svno� PRPQXV�.
as at W% P"-)% va 00 Wop v A . Vsljl ij kmans w 10, Smonavol vvu—,
0 jj;G wk a QQ001 noun OV0 can ZZ VS. 0 la nwtj saw wakpos; W..",

OF W ATF9 T Michael F. Easley, Governor
P William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
0 6 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co F
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director /
—i Division of Water Quality J
June 26, 2002
C005 OD-S-7 7D DD)
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Sam Angel, Mfg. Engineer
A.B. Carter, Inc.
P.O. Box 158
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Subject: Notice of Violation
A.B. Carter .
Spray Irrigation Facility Inspection
Permit No. WQ0004270
Gaston County
Dear Mr. Angel:
Mrs. Ellen Huffman with this Office conducted an inspection of the subject facility on May 30, 2002.
According to her report all wastewater treatment units appeared to be operational; however, the metal aeration
basins were showing deterioration around the upper perimeter of the tanks. This should be repaired as soon as
possible. The following violations of Permit Number WQ0004270 were also observed:
® The permit requires effluent monitoring every February, August, and November; however, a file review
revealed no effluent monitoring for February 2002 and November 2001. The file review indicated that
monitoring took place in April, August, and December for the last four years reviewed.
o The permit requires that annual soil tests be performed on the spray field. Our records indicate that no soil
testing has been performed on the spray field area.
The Division of Water Quality is currently reviewing the severity of the noted violations. Please be
aware that A. B. Carter, Inc. may be assessed civil penalties in this matter pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A(a)(2),
which provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) per violation per
day may be assessed against a person who violates any permit condition, classification, standard, limitation, or
management practice established pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1, 143-214.2 or 143-215. A response to this NOV
should be submitted within 15 working days of receipt of this letter and should include mitigating
circumstances for the violations.and address any new procedures that will be implemented to prevent any
recurrence. Please direct your response to the attention of Ms. Ellen Huffman in the Mooresville Regional
Office. Also reference the subject permit number when providing your response.
cc: Non -discharge compliance
NICDENR
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Sincerely,
D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, Mooresville, NC 28115
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]

a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
IT
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
GENERAL INFORMATION
City/Owner A. B. Carter
Permit # WQ 0004270
Issuance Date May 30, 2001
If applicable SOC Issuance Date N/A
Permittee Contact Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Name Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Cert. # SI #-14820 & WWIII #- 8204
24hr Contact Name Mr. Sam Angel
Reason for Inspection
County Gaston
NPDES# N/A
Expiration Date April 30, 2006
Expiration Date N/A
Telephone No.704/865-1201
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
B/U ORC Charles Porter # 19607
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP OTHER
Type of inspection
Collection System X Spray Irrigation _Drip Irrigation Sludge. Other
Inspection Summary: (additional comments may be included on attached pates)
All wastewater treatment units appeared to be operational. The metal aeration basins showed
signs of deterioration around the upper perimeter of the tanks. This should be repaired as soon as
possible. There were no odors present at the time of inspection. The spray application field was
in very good condition. There were no signs of solids build-up (flashing), hydraulic overloading,
or ponding on the application field. The permittee plans to hook up to a regional sanitary sewer
system within the next 1-2 years. The permit (reissued in June 2001) shows changes in effluent
monitoring and includes annual soils sampling. A file review reflects no effluent monitoring for
February 2002 and November 2001. There have been no soils testing performed on the spray
field area. A call to Sam Angel (the ORC) indicated that he had monitored (as he always had) in
April, August, and December. Two previously issued permits (dating back to 1991) required
sampling every April, August and December and no soils monitoring. The ORC is in the process
of taking soils samples for analyses.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary _yes X no
Inspector(s) Name(s)/Title(s)Ellen Huffinan /Environmental S
Telephone No. 704/663-1699 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection 05-30-02

I
Spray Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter Date- 05-30-02
Type
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
Activated Sludge Spray, high rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
X Lagoon Spray, low rate
Reuse (Golf Courses)
Recycle /Reuse
Single Family Spray, low rate
Single Family Drip
Infiltration System
Other-25,000 gpd spray irrigation wastewater treatment system.
pg I
Yes Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit?
Yes Do all treatment units appear to be operational? If no, note below.
Action items: The aeration basins have rust holes around the top of the metal tank. This needs to be
repaired as soon as possible.
Influent
X All pumps present, operational
X Bar screen, maintained
X Bars evenly spaced
Comments:
Aeration Basin
N/A Bypass structure present
N/A Free of excessive debris
No Bars excessively corroded
Y aeration pattern was even across surface of unit
Y easily accessed
Comments:
Clarifiers
Y weirs level Y scum rack operational Y easily accessible
Comments:

Spray Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter Date-.05-30-02
Lagoon
(check any/all that apply)
Y Is influent structure free of obstructions?
N Are there signs of seepage, overtopping, or erosion on the banksiberms?
N Is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank?
N/A Is liner intact, if visible?
N/A Are baffles/curtains in good condition?
Y Is freeboard adequate,ie.>2 feet from overtopping?
N* Is staff gauge clearly marked?
N Is there evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or flattened/broken)?
N Is there any unusual color?
N Is foaming a problem? No Are antifoam agents used?
N Are floating mats present (sludge, plants, inorganics)?
N Is there evidence of excessive solids buildup?
Y Are all aerators/mixers operational?
N/A Is effluent structure free of obstructions and easily accessible?
Pg 2
Comments: *The operator has a hand held staff gauge and checks the freeboard daily. This is the
effluent storage lagoon for the spray field.
Return Pumps N/A
In place
Filters N/A
Media present
Disinfection
Gas system
Is storage safe?
Residuals
storage/treatment
Operational
Air scour operational Clear well free of solids
X Tablet system
Yes Are tablets present?
Drying beds Concrete storage pad.
UV system
Other X
Comments: When necessary, sludge is removed, de -watered, and sent to a subtitle D landfill.

Spray Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter Date- 05-30-02
Effluent Storage see lagoon
X LAGOON(s) SEPTIC TANK(s)
Number of months storage 3 , Lined Y/N Y
Above ground tank N/A Aerated Mixed
In ground tank N/A Aerated Mixed
ABOVE GROUND TANK
Disposal (final end use)
Is application equipment in need of repair? No. Are buffers adequate? Yes.
Are cover crops the type specified in permit? Yes.
Signs of runoff? No. Signs of ponding? No.
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
Y Is the application equipment present and operational?
N Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
Y Is permit being followed?
N Is there evidence of runoff or drift?
Y Are monitoring wells required by permit?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?
General
Y Is permit available upon request?
Y Are monitoring reports present? NDMR Y NDAR Y
Y Are operational logs present?
Y Are lab sheets available for review?
Y Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
N Are annual soils test reports available?
N Has facility received any public complaints in the last 12 months?
pg 3
OTHER
Comments: The new permit (reissued in June 2001) includes changes in effluent monitoring and
includes annual soils sampling. A file review reflects no effluent monitoring for February 2002
and November 2001. There have been no soils testing performed on the spray field area. A call
to Sam Angel (the ORC) indicated that he had monitored (as he always had) in April, August,
and December. Two previously issued permits (dating back to 1991) required sampling every
April, August and December and no soils monitoring. The ORC is in the process of taking soils
samples for analyses.

-SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete'
A. Sig ure
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
X , ent
so that we can return the card to you.
-
ssee
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
eceived by (Printed Name)
C. Date of Delivery
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
-- -- -- —
If YES, enter d • ry-address below: ❑ No
0K
i MR SAM ANGEL; WG. ENGINEER
A.B.CARTER,'INC
PO BOX 158 ::
)
GASTONIA NC 28053 WQ
3 : Servi e Type
Ce ified Mail ❑ Express Mail
`
❑ Regi ❑ et6rd Receipt for Merchandise
-❑ insured
— �(.0
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑Yes
2) 7001 2510 0005 0287 7029
..._._._ ---- —
_
P.$ Form 381:1-, August 2001' Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-2509'
a-
ry
r-
0Tr
v C A
t
L—�1
Postage $
ru
O
Certified Fee-+,
­�P strBazk
t.r)
Return Receipt Fee
C3
(Endorsement Required)
t7
O
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required) - 17
err
Lrl
Total Poe
MR SAM ANGEL, MFG. ENGINEER
ru
sent To A.B.CARTER, INC
a
sireer, apt" PO BOX 158
f
C3
or PO Box I GASTONIA NC 28053 WQ
C�
1_1
City State, ;
PS Form 3800, January 2001
i "
i
See Reverse for Instructions

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director .
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
GENERAL INFORMATION
City/Owner A. B. Carter
Permit # WQ 0004270
Issuance Date May 30, 2001
If applicable SOC Issuance Date N/A
Permittee Contact Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Name Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Cert. # SI'4-14820 & WWHI #- 8204
24hr Contact Name Mr. Sam Angel
Reason for Inspection
County Gaston
NPDES# N/A
Expiration Date April 30. 2006
Expiration Date N/A
Telephone No.704/865-1201
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
B/U ORC . ' Charles Porter # 19607
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP . OTHER
Type of inspection
Collection System X Spray Irrigation _Drip Irrigation Sludge .. Other
Inspection Summary: (additional comments may be included on'attached pages)
All wastewater treatment units appeared to be operational. The metal aeration basins showed
signs of deterioration around the upper perimeter of the tanks. This should be repaired as soon as
possible. There were no odors present at the time of inspection. The spray application field was
in very good condition. There were no signs of solids build-up (flashing), hydraulic overloading,
or ponding on the application field. The permittee plans to hook up to a regional sanitary sewer
system within the next 1-2 years. The permit (reissued in June 2001) shows changes in effluent
monitoring and includes annual soils sampling. A file review reflects no effluent monitoring for
February 2002 and November 2001. There have been no soils testing performed on the spray
field area. A call to Sam Angel (the ORC) indicated that he had monitored (as he always had) in
April, August, and December. Two previously issued permits (dating back to 1991) required
sampling every April, August and December and no soils monitoring. The ORC is in the process
of taking soils samples for analyses.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary des X no
Inspector(s) Name(s)/Title(s)Ellen Huffinan /Environ
Telephone No. 704/663-1699 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection 05-30-02

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division -of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor.
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
91h'WA
104 0
IT
A&V 0 )
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
GENERAL INFORMATION
City/Owner A. B. Carter
Permit # WQ 0004270
Issuance Date May 30.2001
If applicable SOC Issuance Date N/A
Permittee Contact Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Name Mr. Sam Angel
ORC Cert. # SI 4-14820 & WWIII #- 8204
24hr Contact Name Mr. Sam Angel
Reason for Inspection
County Gaston
NPDES# N/A
Expiration Date April 30. 2006
Expiration Date N/A
Telephone No.704/865-1201
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
B/U ORC Charles Porter # 19607
Telephone No. 704/865-1201
X ROUTINE COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP OTHER
Type of inspection
Collection System X Spray Irrigation _Drip Irrigation Sludge . . Other
Inspection Summary: (additional comments mail be included on attached pap -es)
All wastewater treatment units appeared to be operational. The metal aeration basins showed
signs of deterioration around the upper perimeter of the tanks. This should be repaired as soon as
possible. There were no odors present at the time of inspection. The spray application field was
in very good condition. There were no signs of solids build-up (flashing), hydraulic overloading,
or ponding on the application field. The permittee plans to hook up to a regional sanitary sewer
system within the next 1-2 years. The permit (reissued in June 2001) shows changes in effluent
monitoring and includes annual soils sampling. A file review reflects no effluent monitoring for
February 2002 and November 2001. There have been no soils testing performed on the spray
field area. A call to Sam Angel (the ORC) indicated that he had monitored (as he always had) in
April, August, and December. Two previously issued permits (dating back to 1991) required
sampling every April, August and December and no soils monitoring. The ORC is in the process
of taking soils samples for analyses.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary des X no
Inspector(s) Name(s)/Title(s)Ellen Huffman /Environmental Specialist II/
Telephone No. 704/663-1699 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection 05-30-02

a
Sprav Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter Date- 05-30-02
Type
Activated Sludge Spray, low rate
Activated Sludge Spray, high rate
Activated Sludge Drip, low rate
X Lagoon Spray, low rate
Reuse (Golf Courses)
Recycle /Reuse
Single Family Spray, low rate
Single Family Drip
Infiltration System
Other-25,000 gpd spray irrigation wastewater treatment system.
TrP,Afm,-nt
pg 1
Yes Are treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit?
Yes Do all treatment units appear to be operational? If no, note below.
.fiction items: The aeration basins have rust holes around the top of the metal tank. This needs to be
repaired as soon as possible.
Influent
X All pumps present, operational
X Bar screen, maintained
X Bars evenly spaced
Comments:
Aeration Basin
N/A Bypass structure present
N/A Free of excessive debris
No Bars excessively corroded
Y aeration pattern was even across surface of unit
Y easily accessed
Comments:
Clarifiers
Y weirs level Y scum rack operational Y easily accessible
Comments:

Spray Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter Date- 05-30-02
i
Lagoon
(check any/all that apply)
Y Is influent structure free of obstructions?
N Are there signs of seepage, overtopping, or erosion on the banks/berms?
N Is there excessive vegetation on the lagoon bank?
N/A Is liner intact, if visible?
N/A Are baffles/curtains in good condition?
Y Is freeboard adequate,ie.>2 feet from overtopping?
N* Is staff gauge clearly marked?
N Is there evidence of overflow (vegetation discolored or flattened/broken)?
N Is there any unusual color?
N Is foaming a problem? No Are antifoam agents used?
N Are floating mats present (sludge, plants, inorganics)?
N Is there evidence of excessive solids buildup?
Y Are all aerators/mixers operational?
N/A Is effluent'structure free of obstructions and easily accessible?
Pg 2
Comments: *The operator has a hand held staff gauge and checks the freeboard daily. This is the
effluent storage lagoon for the spray field.
Return Pumps N/A
In place
Filters N/A
Media present
Disinfection
Gas system
Is storage safe?
Residuals
storage/treatment
Operational
Air scour operational Clear well free of solids
X Tablet system
Yes Are tablets present?
Drying beds Concrete storage pad
UV system
Other X
Comments: When necessary, sludge is removed, de -watered, and sent to a subtitle D landfill.

Spray Inspection
Permit #-WQ004270 A. B. Carter Date- 05-30-02
Effluent Storage see lagoon
X LAGOON(s) SEPTIC TANK(s) ABOVE GROUND TANK
Number of months storage 3 , Lined Y/N Y
Above ground tank N/A Aerated Mixed
In ground tank N/A Aerated Mixed
Disposal (final end use)
Is application equipment in need of repair? No. Are buffers adequate? Yes.
Are cover crops the type specified in permit? Yes.
Signs of runoff? No. Signs of ponding? No.
Y Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
Y Is the application equipment present and operational?
N Are there any limiting slopes in disposal fields?
Y Is permit being followed?
N Is there evidence of runoff or drift?
Y Are monitoring wells required by permit?
Y Is site access restricted in accordance with permit?
General
Y Is permit available upon request?
Y Are monitoring reports present? NDMR Y NDAR Y
Y Are operational logs present?
Y Are lab sheets available for review?
Y Do lab sheets support data represented on NDMR or NDAR?
N Are annual soils test reports available?
N Has facility received any public complaints in the last 12 months?
pg 3
C91"P0407
Comments: The new permit (reissued in June 2001) includes changes in effluent monitoring and
includes annual soils sampling. A file review reflects no effluent monitoring for February 2002
and November 2001. There have been no soils testing performed on the spray field area. A call
to Sam Angel (the ORC) indicated that he had monitored (as he always had) in April, August,
and December. Two previously issued permits (dating back to 1991) required sampling every
April, August and December and no soils monitoring. The ORC is in the process of taking soils
samples for analyses.

Permit: WQ0004270
SOC:
County: Gaston
Region: Mooresville
Compliance Inspection Report
Effective: 05/30/01 Expiration: 04/30/06 Owner: AB Carter Inc
Effective: Expiration: Facility: AB Carter Incorporated -A B Carter
PO Box 518
Contact Person: Ernest W Sumner
Directions to Facility:
Primary ORC: Samuel F Angel
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 01/14/2004 Entry Time: 10:30 AM
Primary Inspector: Ellen B Huffman
Secondary Inspector(s):
Gastonia NC 28053
Phone: [phone]
Certification: 14820
Exit Time: 11:50 AM
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Ext.233
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Surface Irrigation
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
Miscellaneous Questions Treatment Treatment Barscreen
Treatment Lagoons Treatment Activated Sludge End Use -Irrigation
Treatment Clarifiers 0 Storage
(See attachment summary)
Record Keeping
■ Treatment Influent Pump
Station
Page: 1

Permit: WQ0004270 Owner - Facility: AB Carter Inc
Inspection Date: 01/14/2004 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Page: 2

Permit: WQ0004270 Owner - Facility: AB Carter Inc
Inspection Date: 01/14/2004 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Type
Recycle/Reuse
Activated Sludge Spray, HR
Activated Sludge Drip, LR
Activated Sludge Spray, LR
Single Family Spray, LR
Infiltration System
Reuse (Quality)
Single Family Drip
Lagoon Spray, LR
Treatment
Are Treatment facilities consistent with those outlined in the current permit?
Do all treatment units appear to be operational? (if no, note below.)
Reason for Visit: Routine
Comment: The metal aeration basin showed signs of deterioriation during the last
inspection and has been taken off line. There were no odors aat the time of inspection.
There was a wet area below the spray field that may be an indication of a broken pipe.
There was an area at the treatment influent tha tshowed signs of soil erosion adn
standing water form recent rain events. gravel had been placed there to alleviate the
problem. It was suggested that a berm above the area would divert the water form the
area.
Treatment Influent Pump Station
Is the pump station free of bypass lines or structures?
Is the general housekeeping acceptable?
Are all pumps present?
Are all pumps operable?
Are floats/controls operable?
Are audio and visual alarms available?
Are audio and visual alarms operational?
# Are SCADA/Telemetry alarms required?
Are SCADA/Telemetry available?
Are SCADA/Telemetry operational?
Comment: see comments above
Treatment Barscreen
■
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
MOOO
Page: 3

Permit: WQ0004270 Owner - Facility: AB Carter Inc
Inspection Date: 01/14/2004 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Is it free of excessive debris?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is disposal of screenings in compliance?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are the bars spaced properly?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the unit in good condition?
■
Q
❑
❑
Comment:
Treatment Activated Sludge
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is the aeration mechanism operable?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the aeration basin thoroughly mixed?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the aeration equipment easily accessed?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is Dissolved Oxygen adequate?
❑
❑
❑
■
Are Settleometer results acceptable?
❑
❑
❑
■
Is activated sludge an acceptable color?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Treatment Clarifiers
Yes'
No
NA
NE
Are the weirs level?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are the weirs free of solids and algae?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the scum removal system operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the scum removal system accessible?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the sludge blanket at an acceptable level?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the effluent from the clarifier free of excessive solids?
■
❑
❑
❑
Comment:
Record Keeping
Yes
No
NA
NE
Is a copy of current permit available?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are monitoring reports present: NDMR?
■
❑
❑
❑
NDAR?
■
❑
❑
❑
Are flow rates less than of permitted flow?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Are flow rates less than of permitted flow?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Are application rates adhered to?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Is GW monitoring being conducted, if required (GW-59s submitted)?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Are all samples analyzed for all required parameters?
❑
❑
❑
❑
Page: 4

I
Permit: WQ0004270 Owner - Facility: AB Carter Inc
Inspection Date: 01/14/2004 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Reason for Visit: Routine
Are there any 2L GW quality violations?
❑
Q
Q
Is GW-59A certification form completed for facility?
Q
❑
O
❑
Is effluent sampled for same parameters as GW.
0
Q
Do effluent concentrations exceed GW standards?
❑
❑
0
Q
Are annual soil reports available?
■
O
# Are PAN records required?.
00
O
■
# Did last soil report indicate a need for lime?
■
❑
Q
If so, has it been applied?
■
❑
❑
Q
Are operational logs present?
Q
❑
O
■
Are lab sheets available for review?
■
❑
11
Q
Do lab sheets support data reported on NDMR?
❑
❑
❑
■
Do lab sheets support data reported on GW-59s?
Q
Are Operational and Maintenance records present?
Q
❑
❑
■
Were Operational and Maintenance records complete?
❑
0
Q
■
Has permittee been free of public complaints in last 12 months?
■
❑
11
Q
Is a copy of the SOC readily available?
■
0
O
No treatment units bypassed since last inspection?
■
Comment:
End Use -Irrigation
Yes
No
NA
NE
Are buffers adequate?
■
❑
Q
❑
Is the cover crop type specified in permit?
■
❑
❑
Q
Is the crop cover acceptable?
■11
Q
Q
Is the site condition adequate?
■11
❑
Q
Is the site free of runoff / ponding?
■
❑
Q
Q
Is the acreage specified in the permit being utilized?
■
❑
O
Is the application equipment present?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the application equipment operational?
■
❑
❑
❑
Is the disposal field free of limiting slopes?
■
Q
Q
Is access restricted and/or signs posted during active site use?
■
0
0
❑
Are any supply wells within the CB?
O
❑
Q
Page: 5

Permit: WQ0004270 Owner - Facility: AB Carter Inc
Inspection Date: 01/14/2004 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Are any supply wells within 250' of the CB?
How close is the closest water supply well?
Is municipal water available in the area?
# Info only: Does the permit call for monitoring wells?
Are GW monitoring wells located properly w/ respect to RB and CB?
Are GW monitoring wells properly constructed, including screened interval?
Are monitoring wells damaged?
Comment: see comments above
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

i
:quemmoo
(sTaos pa1Euimequoo mnaTozgad
sapnToui) aoEmuaquTvm/uoTjRoTTdde zadozdmi
90 aouapiAa - s94Ts abpnTs 30 uoi4aoiTddy pueq
J �
:quammoO
spTaig uoigvbizzl AEzds go uoTgTpuoO -E
: quammoO
(sTTrm apisuz buoTE buTATTnB
ATTPToadso agou) zauTq uoobeq go sngvgs •q
squammoO
sTTEM uoobEZ -4o sngE:ls -E
suoobEr .z
:quammoO
on sax
buipuod zagaM agsgA go aouapzAR -L
uoTgraado A4TTTOga (Y)
(TEsodsTa 9jsvf4/uoTgonz:jsuo, A-4iTioE,j- sod) ,
SSI-JXDMD NOIj021dSKI/ROIIVfI9KAH HMIS , <.
WSLISas
TdsoasIQ 30 aaxi
'HaMaIAaS
ITUM00
v4m (I
I

S. Buffer Zones
note buffer zone violations:
(B) Monitor Well Inspection
1. Monitor wells constructed in accordance with
N.C. well construction regulations
a. note violations by well number:

r.,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Albert F-Hilton, Regional Manager
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 8, 1990
Mr. Ernest Sumner, Vice -President
A. B. Carter, Inc.
Post Office Box 518
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Subject: Compliancd Inspection Report
A. B. Carter, Inc.
Permit No. WQ0004270
Gaston County, NC
Dear Mr. Sumner:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Compliance Inspection
Report for the inspection conducted at the subject -facility on
October 31, 1990, by Mr. Allen Hardy of this Office. The Report
should be self-explanatory.
It is requested that a written response be submitted to this
Office by November 26, 1990, addressing the deficiencies noted in
the attached report.
If you have any questions concerning this.Report, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Hardy or me.
Sincerely,
ZD. �2--�_'
D. Rex Gleason, P. E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Roger O. Pfaff, EPA
Gaston County Health Department
WAH:se
919 North Main Street, Mooresville, N.C. 28115 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Compliance Inspection Report
ama an ovation of Facility Inspected
A. B. Carter, Inc.
EntryTime 11 AM [XI PM
1:00
Permit Effoctive Date
July 15, 1988
Exit Time/Date
Permit .Expiration Date
Highway 321, South
Gaston County, North Carolina
2.:00 10/31/90
June 30, 1991
ame(s) of Qn-Site opros-amative(s)
Titles)
Phone No(s)
Ernest Sumner
Vice -President
:[phone]
Name, Address of Responsible Official
Title
Ernest Sumner
Vice -President
Post Office (Box 518
Phone No.
Contacted
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
[phone]
ZI Yes ❑ No
Summary of Operations & Maintenance
Facility Site Review
1. The aeration basin was odorous and had a dark, blackish color. It appeared to be septic.
Additional aeration may be necessary to prevent septic conditions.
2. The clarifier had an abundance of surface scum. The skimmer did not appear to be working
properly. Repairs need to be made as necessary. ,
3. The storage lagoon aerator was.not operable at the,time of inspection. The aerator.. needs
to be repaired and put back -in operation immediately.
Spray Irrigation Field
1. The'spray field had.a good stand of fescue -grass, and appeared to be well maintained.
There did not appear to be any problems with the spray field.
2. An inspection of the spray field piping and nozzles was not conducted.
3. It was stated by Ernest Sumner that the field had not been used in approximately one year
due to evaporation from:the lagoon. This is questionable due to the fact that in this
region of the country evaporation does not normally exceed precipitation. Since the
lagoon is unlined, the wastewater is probably being lost due to percolation.
4. The lagoon appeared to have approximately two (2) feet of freeboard.
Name(s) and Sig*rtature(s) of Inspector(s)
Agency/Office/Telephone
Date
Allen Hardy
DEM/MRO/[phone]
ll/.6/90 .
Signature of Reviewer
Agency/Office
Date