NCS000509_OTHER_20200925

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
NCS PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
Ncs OLD 050G
DOC TYPE
❑ FINAL PERMIT
❑ MONITORING REPORTS
❑ APPLICATION
❑ COMPLIANCE
X OTHER- HiSToItiCAL 1NFJ
DOC DATE
❑ 2D2009 25
YYYYM M D D

or
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Division of Water Quality
Biological Assessment Unit
August 14, 2009
MEMORANDUM
To: Thom Edgart t
tf
Through: Jay Saub r.` _
Eric Fleel7F
From: Bill Crouch
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Results of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in Parker Creek for Washington Region Office (WARO)
sampling request: Hendrix and Dail, Inc., Greenville, NC. Tar River Basin, HUC 03020103
BACKGROUND
WARO requested biological assessment of a water body that drains the property of Hendrix and Dail, Inc in Greenville.
Parker Creek and UT Parker Creek flow behind this property. Sizeable percentages of the watersheds of UT Parker Creek
and Parker Creek's drain industrial areas in this part of Greenville (see map). There are specific concerns about storm
water runoff from the Hendrix and Dail, Inc. property. The facility contains large amounts of the following chemicals:
methyl bromide, chloropierin, sodium methyldithiocarbamate. According to WARO the current draft storm water permit
may not be adequate to protect aquatic resources in Parker Creek and biological sampling upstream and downstream of
this property may help to determine what effect, if any, runoff from this property has on Parker Creek. Prior to this study
the Biological Assessment Unit had not sampled Parker Creek for aquatic ntacroinvertebrates.
Conclusions
The aquatic community in Parkers Creek differed little between the upstream site (SR 1579) and downstream (SR 1591),
below the Hendrix and Dale Inc. facility. Both sites rated Poor, an indication of degraded water quality. Slightly higher
EPT numbers, coupled with lower Biotic Index values appear at the downstream location. This corresponds with the
lower specific conductance values seen downstream (188) versus upstream (244). The macroinvertebrate communities
that reside in these reaches are tolerant to many types of aquatic pollution as evident by the high Biotic Index values.
Very few EPT taxa were collected indicating stress on the aquatic community at both locations. Habitat is limited, both
in -stream and riparian. Historic channelization in this small water body promotes extreme fluctuations in hydrology
further stressing the aquatic macroinvertebrates residing in Parker Creek.
Cc At Hodge WARO
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]Internet www.enr.state.naus
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
Naturally

J J

METHODS
Habitat Evaluation
Habitat analyses are important when investigating aquatic communities, as streams essentially flow
through a terrestrial landscape. The physical features of a stream or small river are largely influenced by
geology and the areas immediately adjacent to the water body (i.e. riparian zone), especially small
streams. Documentation of the habitat characteristics of a site can identify factors that could limit or even
enhance a stream's ability to support a diverse macroinvertebrate community. The habitat analysis also
provides a baseline from which future changes in the physical conditions of the stream or riparian zone
can be measured, since these changes can result in an altered macroinvertebrate assemblage in the stream
itself.
Habitat evaluations were made using the Biological Assessment Unit's Coastal Plain Ecoregion Habitat
Assessment Field Data Sheet. This assessment assigns a numerical score from 1-100 for the reach of
stream sampled, based on channel modification, in -stream habitat, bottom substrate, pool variety, riffle
habitats, bank stability and vegetation, light penetration, and width of the riparian zone. No criteria have
been developed to rate habitat scores, however, the higher the score, the better the overall habitat.
Physical -Chemical
Field measurements were taken at the time of sampling for temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity,
and pH using a YSI 85 meter and an Accumet pH meter.
Benthos
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using the Standard Qualitative (Full Scale) method'. The
Standard Qualitative method is comprised of 10 separate samples: two kick -nets; three bank sweeps; two
rock/log washes; one leafpack; one sand substrate; and visual collections of larger substrates not sampled
thoroughly by the other procedures (e.g. boulders, submerged logs). All taxa were retained. The primary
output is a taxa list, with a measure of relative abundance for each taxon. Aquatic fauna at each site were
counted, by individual taxon, as Rare (I or individuals), Common Q to 9 individuals), or Abundant (10
or more individuals).
Data Analyses
Macroinvertebrate data were summarized by calculating several metrics including the total number of
taxa (ST), EPT taxa richness (EPT S) and EPT abundance (EPT N), which describes the number and
relative abundance of distinct taxa in the orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and
Trichoptera (eaddisflies). These groups of macroinvertebrates are generally intolerant to many forms of
pollution. Higher EPT taxa richness values typically indicate better water quality. It is generally
understood that streams that are unstressed have a higher overall diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates,
particularly of the EPT orders, and that taxa found at those sites have a low threshold for tolerance to
aquatic pollution. Water quality ratings are also based on a value that is derived from the pollution
tolerances of the number of each taxa found in the sample. This is known as the North Carolina Biotic
Index (NCBI or BI). The more tolerant the macroinvertebrate community is to pollutants, the higher the
overall tolerance score will be. Scores range from 0 (pollution sensitive) to 10 (very tolerant of
pollution).
NCDWQ.2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch. July, 2006.
' Lenat, D.R. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States; derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water
quality ratings. 'NABS 12: 279-290.

These metrics enable comparisons between reference sites and study sites as well as the determination of
bioclassification. The water quality scores assigned by the Biotic Index are combined with EPT taxa
richness scores to produce a final bioclassification. There are five possible classifications; Excellent;
Good; Good -Fair; Fair; and Poor.
Data Templates
In the following pages are two data templates, one for each site on Parker Creek. These data templates
are identical to templates produced for annual basinwide sampling and contain bioclassifications, habitat
and water chemistry measurements along with associated data. Taxonomic and data analyses are
included for each site. A list of all aquatic macroinvertebrates collected for this study is located in
Appendix A.

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Location Station ID Date Bioclassification
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
-77!349200„ ,;Mid=Atlantic Flatwoods`;:
Stream Classification Drainage Area (mil) Elevation (1t) Stream Width (m) Stream Depth (m)
3 1 W, 5
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse l%) 20 :ir%80.,, :..:.. `0. .,..
Upstream NPDES Dischargers (>1MGD or <1MGD and within t mile) NPDES Number Volume (MGD)
DSM Pharmaceuhcala'(mmor) „'1 ?: '''NC0001058 �J; v •not_limited
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)
Inslream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Left Bank Stability (10)
Right Bank Stability (10)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Substrate
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT 81 Bioclassification
1521 ,' ,, ,13 ' w7J8 620 Poor ,771
Taxonomic Analysis
The aquatic macromvertetirate community m this seopon�of Paker•,Creek contained few EPT taxa (3) but many chironoipids oligoclieates and
gastropods fAbundanUyyoolleded,taia,include pollutwns tolerant organisms 6keithe damsel, fly Ishnura the midge Cdrro[opus brcinctus and the
oligochaete Lv'mnodd/us hoffinersterf `�The laryest group of aquatic,`orgamsmsw�re midges wmchraccounted for over.30% of the taxa;collected ? i?.
Data Analysis
Thim,site on Parker Creek at SR 1591 rated Poor: The aquatic community is dominated by chironomids, oligochaetes and odonates (damsel'
and'dmgohflies) which favor the shiftirg'sand substrates`m this cliannehzed section of Pecker Creek Thebiobc index measured 7 8 indicahng,a Jery.�','.
p' T tlon tolerant aquatic commmuty! Water, qualityand In stream, habaat conditions here am very simdar'to the,downstream�site (at SR•1591). The
photo above was taken on r10 June 2009 two weekapnor to In stream sampling,and shows the turbidity and bank full flows which typically follow
preciprtion a`vents During sampling the water clarity was slighly,ju&b

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLE
Location
County Subbasin 8 digit HUC Latitude Longitude AU Number Level IV Ecoregion
„03020703 r;i ;35i844140r'=77-,345200 <28-95 - ; Mid -Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces:i,
Stream Classification Drainage Area (m12) Elevation (ft) Stream Width (m) Stream Depth (m)
C;NSW.;
Forested/Wetland Urban Agriculture Other (describe)
Visible Landuse I%)
NPDES Dlschartlem (>1MGD or c1MGD and within 1 mile) NPDES Number Volume
Water Quality Parameters
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mgli-)
Specific Conductance (pS/cm)
pH (s.u.)
Water Clarity '^ ;';dear 'q4 `,4•irw
Habitat Assessment Scores (max)
Channel Modification (5)
Instream Habitat (20)
Bottom Substrate (15)
Pool Variety (10)
Left Bank Stability (10)
Right Bank Stability (10)
Light Penetration (10)
Left Riparian Score (5)
Right Riparian Score (5)
Total Habitat Score (100)
Site Photograph
Substrate neady.all san&with somefailt
Sample Date Sample ID ST EPT BI EPT BI Bioclassification
Taxonomic Analysis
iA to 0f flve:EPT taxa were collected,here In June 2009 vOne taxon'the mayfly Stenacron interpunctatum'p was abundant Despfte the presence 'of,
gone addrGonaymayfiyatezon and three 6dd4s8a3s the: macromvertebrate community in this reach of ParkerCreek Is dominated by chnmonomids
of the total laze) odonates mduding the pollution tolerant damselfly Argla ohgochetes and'g`astropodsi IngeneraI aquatic orgamsms found here; `,
were tolemnfto low dissolved oxygen levels shdtmg'sand substrates and degraded water quality '
'n°���', r�?"1�'...�Y x:�. ._. 'v,�?•G��tP..� ' n.J k�,. ",d. d.�.�t..i3"'� uSr,
Data Analysis
This downstream fte below the confluenee,of Parker Creek and+UT Parker Creek encompasses the Hendrix and Dail, Inc property„Since both this';
site and�the upstream control site (SR 1579) rated.P.00r id little can,6e saas to;the effectd any the facility;;has on this reach of Parker Creek Water,!.
chemistry parameters suggests that the{addlbonal dilution provided iy UT}Parker Creek may have slightly improved conditions ji&ri erspeafic ;',.;
conductances and Iower,BwUc Index downsteam) :Both sites had compare, e',habitats which scored low:' Historic channehzation leading to an
altered hydrology (fiashuiesa) plague"this solve headwaters Becton of thetParker Freak watershed ,The photo above, vies taken on 10 June 2009,: ,
appr'oxlmately two weeks poor to m stream sampling'; tThe Wrbid water rs the result o(a onevent tie day before During sampling the water,'-
dadty
v

't
' �� -d�J ' mii; e� 9 k �ti•�°.`U..� �[Xa 1Yc I �
'
nbdSTENACRON
-�
.�•
1
}.L % AaG•.%'.G��"y�."N. �..`�.1TiIaLW �l-
',..0 EUMAT5Z1
.tl.,� D.•.
t
4 .�:�.. �e"Y �SHrrx " 1sN3.eG:�.ili`.�:.�.aii:��:�`.M1 r>'.�•er"w'JY=a
# :• •
anontoaa-
��
ISCHNURASPP
•
••
• OBSCURUS
k4
a
MACROMIA
J..•ti
l--
r
• •
=©
J
MANVI.
'.i��»��r`'4��s.`�v�t:€�--
^1SPP
��1eeN Y "f� `� • .
Y %
'aS�t(^l J :�[. J;,.4^ "�Fx{�"'F•'4��4�.v2v �..�s�5^."7k'4'Y'li s`J�.:nb'sY.ela�� l�n
CLADOPELMA SPP©-
CLINOTANYPUS SPP-�
COELOTANYPUS TRICOLOR
CORYNONEURA SP B©-
• •• •- •
- • • :
• ..
DICROTENDIPES ••
PARACLADOPELMA NEREIS
PENTANEURA INCONSPICLIA
-�
-�
oa
o0
o�
00

POLYPEDILUM ILLINOENSE GR0�
POLYPEDILUM SCALAENUM GR00
--• •• : �
....ROBACKIoa
•
. ..
THIENEMANIELLA LOBAPODEMA�o
�
:•
�0
o0
o�
a�
00
�o
•yam
l.�"�'�4
vw'4""yy�,V^to�i4"`„dI^:t.1C+ $.•1-"+�g
ANOPHELES
v�r i'p°l1'i.'li'�'`Nt��`4�`•�'��:'�t;Cv "��
e�-a�.e..fi"s.
C ••
ixyllr
`V��
>�v..l•4�aLVV((�
'� .js'1� '4.Y ' �tAZ 3f6T p! i'tm �.'Y:
uifaa
YNEA
PSEUDOSUC CO'.vLUMELLA
}y}y,atw
SJ�?''ft,�F� 'TFrs6 `A', 1 4^F! i�;s �f rK �s;e: g,""•W�'1N�.r�'"S�-_-_
C� w S . • •
p s4lg3 •
M
00

J
WDEPRR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
March 5, 2009
Individual NPDES Stormwater Permit Renewal Transmittal Cover Page
To: Washington Regional Office, Mr. Al Hodge
Subject: NPDES Stormwater Permit No. NCS000509
Hendrix and Dail, Inc
Greenville, NC (Pitt County) MAP, -3 F
,
Attachment Description
® Staff Report
® Draft Permit
? Renewal Application
Please provide comments on the draft permit and sign staff report if acceptable.
4^&1 7-2.1ZZ
Return to Cory Larsen at the Central Office by AprH-T; 20E9.
Cory Larsen
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1.877 623.6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Acton Employer
None
ithCarolina
Natui

NCS000509
Recommendations: Based on the documents reviewed, the application information submitted on July 23, 2004 is
deemed sufficient to issue an Individual Stonmvater Permit.
Prepared by (Signature) lA Ct9�Date 3
Stormwaier Permitting Unit Supervisor C����� Date
/for Bradley Benng4t
Concurrence by Regional Offi e I V Date / 117 D
Water Quality Supervisor Date v 0
Regional Office Staff Comments
Z lno 010jecV.0, to F- 4- 8'rcA P4r'11-+;� as
po '&An}" 1.
4&a 91n)oy
Page 5 of 7

NCS000509
AAA�r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
STAFF REVIEW AND EVALUATION
NPDES Stormwater Permit
Facility Name:
NPDES Permit Number:
Facility Location:
Type of Activity:
SIC Code (if applicable):
Receiving Streams:
River Basin:
Stream Classification:
Proposed Permit Requirements:
Monitoring Data:
Response Requested by (Date):
Central Office Staff Contact:
Special Issues:
Hendrix & Dail, Inc
NCS000509
I t01 Industrial Blvd, Greenville, NC (Pitt County) See Figure 1
Pesticide Production
2879 Ag. Chemicals
Parker Creek
Tar -Pamlico River Basin, Sub -basin 03-03-05
C:NSW
See attached draft permit.
See Appendices
April 7, 2009
Return to Cory Larsen,[phone]
Issued rr t
att" Rattn S iScale sl easy to
Compliance history
Benchmark cxceedance
2
Location (TMDL, TR E species,
5
etc
Other Challenges:
6
• Old file
Difficulty Rating:
(14)/40
Description of Onsite Activities:
• 'fhc facility's main activities include repackaging, relabeling and formulation ol'pesticides for
commercial application.
Documents Reviewed:
• SPU Files
• EPA'I'Rl Data & MSGP
• 2006 303(d) List
• NC'fMDLs
• 2004 "far -Pant Basiuwide Plan
• NC Natural heritage Program liar T&E
History:
• Pcrmi(tec submitted application: July 23,
2004
• Permit application acknowledged: August
6, 2004
Page I of 7

NCS000509
7­
Induor BIG
to
J
&0
X
&
au
jr.
I?
Hendrix and Dail, In
c
E
REEN
C
Col..
Pat
NCS000509
/%1qp Scale 1, 20, 000
Hendrix and Dail, Inc
Lab bide: 350 38' 24" N
Longitude: 770 20'44" W
County: Pitt
Receiving Stream: Parker Creek
Stream Class: C; NSW
Sub -basin: 03-03-05 (Tar-Pardico River Basin)
Facility Location

VNCS000509
Central Office Review Summary:
1: Owner's Other Pennits:
• NA
2. General Observations:
• Small facility (-5 ac) with approximately .50% impervious cover;
• Site has three outfalls that drain to Parker Creek,
3. Impairment:
o Parker Creek not listed on 303(d) list for impairment;
o The 2004 Basinwide Plan for the Tar -Pam basin shows impacted water quality in Parker Cl eek.
however, data from 2007 shows significant improvement for most all indicators surveyed;
o Parker Creek does not currently have any TM6Ls.
4. 'rhreatencd and Endangered:
o West Indian Manatee within 2 miles.
5. Location:
o Facility is located in the northern part of Greenvillejust inside the CIS-264 loop.
6. Indust riahChances Since Previous Permit
o Since the application was submiuccl in 2004, there have been no significant changes in industrial
process activities at the facility.
7. Analytical Monitoring Notes:
o Monitoring performed for one of three outialls as part of LPA Form 2F. All parameter results were
either non -detect or insignificant.
o See Appendix A for full results.
8. Qualitative Monitoring Notes:
o No visual monitoring required or performed.
Page 3 of 7

NCS000509
Revised Permit Recommendations: Analytical Monitoring:
1. Adding parameters...
a. TSS - added to track solids concentration. Sandy soils and equipment/thick traftic potential source.
b. Methyl Bromide — primary pesticide produced at facility; Will be a monitor -only parameter as the
calculated benchmark (by Nikki Remmington) is below the MDL and PQL,.
c. OfiG — component of pesticides formulated onsite. Also potential contribution from truck traffic:
d. NO,+NO2—N — MSGP lists parameter under Subscctor CL Also NSW receiving water.
e. TP -- MSGP lists parameter under Subscctor Cl . AlsoNSW receiving water.
2. pli added — standard addition to pennit.
3. All analytical monitoring set to semi-annually.
4. Benchmarks for analytical monitoring and Tiered monitoring system added to this draft permit.
5. Analytical and qualitative monitoring required during representative storm events. Qualitative monitoring
required regardless of representative outfall status.
6. Plow reporting replaced by total rainfall parameter.
7. Vehicle maintenance monitoring revised to semi-annually.
Other Proposed Changes to the Previous Permit:
I. See draft permit for full details.
;-f,Sr;.,C4 D�rir E.
Discussions with permittee: Ricky Keck, 800-726-5215, 02/27/2009. 03/03/09
1. Q: Have there been any changes in industrial activities since the application was submitted in 2004?
a. ANSWER: No.
2. Q: Can you please provide a description of facility activities?
a. ANSWER: See Description of Onsite Activities (pg 1).
3. Q: How do products arrive/leave the facility?
a. ANSWER: In on rail, out on truck. Approximate truck volume is 1-2 trucks per day max.
4. Q: What is Exxsol D-80 and how much is used and stored onsite?
a. ANSWER: It is an petroleum product that is blended into one of their products. Up to 5000 gal can be
stored and approximate usage is 5000 gal/mo max.
5. Q: What can you tell me about the warehouse storage at your site?
a. ANSWER: One of the warehouses at the facility is leased to another company that stores dry goods
such as wool or carpet. No liquids stored.
Page 4 of 7

VNCS000509
Central Office Review Summary:
1. Owner's Other Permits:
• NA
2. General Observations:
• Small facility (-5 ac) with approximately 50% impervious cover;
• Site has three outfalls that drain to Parker Creek.
3. hnpairment:
o Parker Creek not listed on 303(d) list for impairment;
o The 2004 Basinwide Plan for the Tar -Pam basin shows impacted water quality in Parker Creek,
however, data from 2007 shows significant improvement for most all indicators surveyed;
o Parker Creek does not currently have any TMDLs.
4. Threatened and Endangered:
o West Indian Manatee within 2 miles.
5. Location:
o Facility is located in the northern part of Greenvillejust inside the US-264 loop.
6. Industrial Chanties Since Previous Permit
o Since the application was submitted in 2004, there have been no significant changes in industrial
process activities at the facility.
7. Analytical Monitoring Notes:
o Monitoring performed for one of three outfalls as part of EPA Form 2F. All parameter results were
either non -detect or no concern.
o See Appendix A for full results.
8. Qualitative Monitoring Notes:
o No visual monitoring required or performed in permit application.
Page') of 9

NCS000509
Revised Permit Recommendations: Analytical Monitoring:
1. Adding parameters...
a. TSS — added to track solids concentration. Sandy soils and equipment/truck traffic potential source;
3,� Eby b. Methyl Bromide — primary pesticide produced at facility; will be a monitor -only parameter as the
SFortA calculated benchmark (by Nikki Remmington) is below the MDL and PQL;
c. Metham Sodium (sodium methyldithiocarbamate)— toxic soil fumigant stored onsite (200,000 Ibs).
Will be a monitor -only parameter. Insufficient data to calculate benchmark;
d. Chloropicrin (nitrochloroform) — added dire to toxic characteristics and quantity stored and produced
(1.84M Ibs/yr) onsite. Insufficient data to calculate benchmark so this will also be a monitor -only
benclunark;
e. Formaldehyde — added due to presence onsite and toxicity as a biocide;
f. Hexane — liquid adhesive stored and produced at the site in the form of hexane. Containment not
provided currently.
g. 0&G — component of pesticides formulated onsite and to monitor Exxsol D-80, a petroleum product.
Also some potential contribution from vehicle traffic.
h. NO3+NO2—N — MSGP lists parameter under Subsector Cl. Also NSW receiving water.
i. TP—MSGP lists parameter under Subsector Cl. Also NSW receiving water.
2. pH added — standard addition to permit.
3. All analytical monitoring set to semi-annually.
4. Benchmarks for analytical monitoring and Tiered monitoring system added to this draft permit.
5. Analytical and qualitative monitoring required during representative storm events. Qualitative monitoring
required regardless of representative outfall status.
6. Flow reporting replaced by total rainfall parameter.
7. Vehicle maintenance monitoring revised to semi-annually.
Other Proposed Changes to the Previous Permit:
1. See draft permit for full details.
Discussions with permittee: Ricky Keck, EFIS Mgr — Florida office, 800-726-5215, 02/27/2009, 03/03/09,
04/23/09
1. Q: Have there been any changes in industrial activities since the application was submitted in 2004?
a. ANSWER: No.
2. Q: Can you please provide a description of facility activities?
a. ANSWER: See Description of Onsite Activities (pg 1).
3. Q: Flow do products arrive/leave the facility'? i
i
a. ANSWER: In on rail, out on truck. Approximate truck volume is 1-2 trucks per day max.
4. Q: What is Exxsol D-80 and how, much is used and stored.olnsite?
a. ANSWER: It is an petroleum product that is blended into one of their products. Up to 5000 gal can be
stored and approximate usage is 5000 gal/mb max.
5. Q: What can you tell me about the warehousestorageat your site?
a. ANSWER: One of the warehgu�es at the facility is leased to another company that stores dry goods
such as wool or carpet. No-tfquids stored.
6. Q: 04/23/09 Letter to Permitte Re Chemical Inventory
a. ANSWER: See Appendix B.
Page 4 of 9