NCS000156_OTHER_20140923

STQRMINATER DNISfOTTCUDING-SHEET
PERMIT NO.
N GS UDO I S b
DOC TYPE
❑FINAL PERMIT
❑ MONITORING INFO
0 APPLICATION
CD LIANCE
I� OTHER
DOC DATE
I
YYYYMMDD

r
,MEERI G, Inc.
September 23. 2014
Via: E-Mail and Regular Mail
Ms. Cathy Amoroso
Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, GA 30303-8909
Subj: Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum
Wright Chemical Corporation, Superfund Site
Riegelwood, North Carolina
EPA ID No. NCO024766719
Dear Ms. Amoroso:
For the Wright Chemical site, on behalf of Oak Bark Corporation and Koch Sulfur Products
LLC, in accordance with the Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent
(AOC) For Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), specifically the Statement of
Work, please find attached two hard copies of the Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs
Technical Memorandum and one electronic copy, (disk).
If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact either of the
undersigned at [phone].
Respectfully yours,
Shield Engineering, Inc.
LLIL -
vid Wallace, P.E.
fir:, roject Engineer
David A. Stoner, P.G. -
Project Coordinator
cc: Mr. David Mattison, Mr. William Oakley, Mr. James Barker, Mr. John Andreasen,
Mr. Frank Van Ryn, and Mr. Phil Conner all by e-mail only
HAProjcctsU0lM1100044-04 Wright Chemical RIMCandidate Tcchnologies Tech MemolCover Letter Candidate Technologies Memo Rev
0,doc
4301 Taggart Cn9ek Road Tekpt"w 704.394.5913
Chadoffe, NC 28206 www.shieldergineesing.com
Fax [phone]

CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES
and
TESTING NEEDS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
WRIGHT CHEMICAL SITE
NCD024766719
RIEGELWOOD, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
ENGINEERING. IHIC_
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
1-800-395-5220
Shield Project No. 1100044-04
September 2014

CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES AND TESTING NEEDS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
WRIGHT CHEMICAL SITE
EPA ID #NCD024766719
RIEGELWOOD, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
*9KJW
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
Shield Project No. 1 ] 00044-04
September 2014
This Technical Memorandum was prepared by:
ram. ��FgSSIp;��.p
J. Wallace, P.E. - 2D055 = Date
Sent ject Manager ;
North Carolina Professional Enginee>�
4��l��tiur;rtrrryr/`
This Technical Memorandum
%E NSE
� O
SEAL
1427 - 2.3 - I LI
David A. Stoner, P.G. %yl pZ 0 ` Date
Project Coordinator/Sr. Prinz
North Carolina Licensed Geologist#d „`' `

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID HNCDO24766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1/ 00044-04 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................
1.1 Overview/Organization............................................................................................1
1.2 Property Background................................................................ ...3
1.3 Overview of Site Contaminants....................................................................
-2.0 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................7
2.1 Site Physical Characteristics....................................................................................7
2.2 Simplified Site Conceptual Model...........................................................................8
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.....................................................................................12
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL REMEDIATiON
TECHNOLOGIES.........................................................................................13
5.0 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES .....................14
5.1 Remediation Strategy.............................................................................................14
5.2 Geochemical Considerations.................................................................................15
5.3 Screening Criteria............................•---..................................................................17
5.4 Screening of Technologies for Vadose Zone Soil/Sediments................................19
5.5 Screening of Technologies for Smear Zone Soil/Sediments contributing to
Groundwater Contamination..................................................................................20
5.6 Screening of Groundwater Technologies...............................................................21
6.0 SUMMARY OF TESTING NEEDS SCREEN .................. ..........24
7.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................27

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID =NCD024766719 Septemher 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical A9emorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page ii
FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Site Location Map
Figure 2-1
Site Layout Map
Figure 2-2
Simplified Conceptual Site Model
TABLES
Table 1-1
General List of Potential Contaminants and Source Areas
Table 5-1
Summary of Metals in Soils/Sediments Exceeding Screening Levels
Table 5-2
Summary of Other Contaminants in Soils/Sediments Exceeding Screening Levels
Table 5-3
Summary of Metals in Groundwater Exceeding Screening Levels
Table 54
Summary of Other Contaminants in Groundwater Exceeding Screening Levels
Table 5-5
Technology Screen for Soil/Sediment Remediation
Table 5-6
Testing Needs Screen for Soil/Sediment Remediation
Table 5-7
Technology Screen for Smear Zone Remediation
Table 5-$
Testing Needs Screen for Smear Zone Remediation
Table 5-9
Technology Screen for Groundwater Remediation
Table 5-10
Testing Needs Screen for Groundwater Remediation
H AProjects1 OMI 100044-04 Wright Chemical RIF51Candidaie Technologies Tech MemolCand Tech and Test Needs - Tech Memo.doc

Wright Chemical Site
EPA 1D #NCD014766719 September 1014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview/Organization
Shield Engineering, Inc. (Shield) was retained by Oak Bark Corporation (OBC), Respondent to
an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (AOC), EPA ID #
NCD024766719, regarding the Wright Chemical Site (the "Site") (EPA, 2014). On behalf of
OBC and Koch Sulfur Products LLC (KSP), both Respondents under the AOC, Shield is
submitting this Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs — Technical Memorandum (CTTN-
TM). The AOC was entered into voluntarily by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Respondents pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, .
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
The effective date of the AOC is June 13, 2014. This CTTN-TM has been drafted in compliance
with Task 4 of the Statement of Work (SOW) which was attached to the AOC. Task 4 of the
Statement of Work requires that Treatability Studies be performed by the Respondents to assist
in the detailed analysis of alternatives. If applicable, the results from these treatability studies
will be used in the design of the selected remedy. Hence, the following activities are to be
performed:
1) Determination of Candidate Technologies: The Respondents shall identify in a technical
memorandum, subject to the EPA review and comment, candidate technologies for a
Treatability Studies program during project planning. The candidate technologies shall
cover the range of technologies required for alternatives analysis. The specific data
requirements for the Treatability Studies program shall be determined and refined during
Site Characterization and the development and screening of Remedial Action
Alternatives.
2) Determine the Need for Treatability Studies: The Respondents shall conduct a literature
survey to gather information on performance, relative costs, applicability, removal

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID 9AICDO24 766 719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 2
efficiencies, operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements, and implementability of
candidate technologies. If candidate technologies have not been sufficiently
demonstrated. or cannot be adequately evaluated for the Site on the basis of available
information. Treatability Studies shall be conducted. The EPA shall determine whether
Treatability Studies will be required.
The results of the first of these two activities are to be reported within this CTTN-TM. The
Wright Chemical Site (EPA ID 4NCD024766719) is being investigated and subsequently
remediated under the direction of EPA - Region 4.
The subject Site is located at 333 Neils Eddy Road in Riegelwood, Columbus County, North
Carolina. approximately 20 miles west-northwest of Wilmington, North Carolina. A site
location map is shown on Figure 1-1. The geographic coordinates of the site are 34°19'39.39"
north latitude and 78°12'01.79" west longitude. The site is comprised of approximately 80 acres
of land that formerly contained the operations of the Wright Chemical Corporation chemical
plant and the Kaiser Agricultural fertilizer plant. The former Wright Chemical facility is still in
operation by Momentive Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (Momentive) and Silar, LLC (Sitar)
producing hexamine, formaldehyde, silanes, and other specialty organic chemicals. The former
Kaiser fertilizer plant is now mostly vacant land.
The introduction, overview and project organization provided in this section is followed by a
summary of the Site background with an overview of the site contaminants identified within the
Preliminary Remedial Investigation Report (Waller, 2012). Section 2 provides an overview of
the site and a simplified site conceptual model for the presence of contaminants across the site.
Section 3 outlines the regulatory framework. An overview of potential remedial technologies in
Section 4 serve as an introduction to Section 5. Section 5 presents the screening of the identified
remedial technologies for the contaminated zones presented in Section 2. The document is
summarized in Section 6 with a listing of testing needs gleaned from the data requirements of the
various candidate remedial technologies. Lastly. Section 7 lists the references used to assist in
preparing this CTTN-TM.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate 'Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 3
1.2 Property Background
The site has been used for production of fertilizer and chemicals since the 1880s. Production of
fertilizer and sulfuric acid began at the site in 1883. From the 1880's through the 1960's, Acme
Manufacturing Company operated the fertilizer manufacturing facility. Acme merged with
Wright Chemical in 1968. Chemical production expanded over time to include manufacturing of
alum, hexamine, formaldehyde, chloropicrin, silanes, and other specialty organic chemicals.
Fertilizer, including superphosphate and locally blended fertilizer, was produced at the site from
1883 to 1984. Fertilizer production occurred in the area south of the Seaboard Air Lines
railroad. Fertilizer production ceased in 1984, and the fertilizer plant buildings and facilities
were subsequently demolished and removed from the site. A Columbus County wastewater
treatment plant was built on the western portion of the fertilizer plant property in 2005 to treat
wastewater from the former Wright Chemical plant. Other than the wastewater treatment plant,
the fertilizer plant property is currently vacant except for former building foundations and a
former holding pond.
Chemical production was conducted, and continues to be conducted, at the site on the north side
of the railroad tracks as the Former Wright Chemical Plant. Sulfuric acid production began in
1883 at the Lead Chamber Acid Plant on the western part of the property to provide sulfuric acid
for the fertilizer plant. Chemical production facilities expanded to the east and north of the
original acid plant, with the addition of alum production facilities in 1964 when the contact
sulfuric acid plant was built, hexamine production in January 1967, formaldehyde and
chloropicrin production in August 1989, and silanes plus other specialty organic chemicals
production in the 1990s.
Wright Chemical ceased acid production on December 3, 1990. In December 1990, Respondent
KSP operated the contact sulfuric acid plant at the site until September/October 1991. In 2004
Respondent OBC acquired the property and Wright Chemical Corporation. In 2006 Hexion
Specialty Chemicals, Inc., n/k/a Momentive acquired a portion of the site (i.e., approximately 22
acres) and manufactures specialty chemicals. Silar purchased OBC's silane manufacturing

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID # AICD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 4
equipment on April 18, 2009 and began manufacturing organic chemicals at that time, while
leasing a portion of the real estate from OBC.
The plant currently produces hexamine, formaldehyde, silanes. and specialty organic chemicals.
Momentive owns and operates much of the former Wright Chemical plant including the
hexamine and formaldehyde production operations. Silar operates the silanes plant.
1.3 Overview of Site Contaminants
Based on the nature of previous site -activities and the results of the Preliminary Remedial
Inwestigation Report (Waller, 2012). the nature of the potential contaminants of concern at the
Site are complicated in terms of location and the types of constituents mixed together at each
location. At this time, the optimal available summary of potential contaminants and their source
areas is Table 3-1 within the Preliminary Remedial Investigation Report (Waller, 2012). This
table was used to develop a summarized version of these data in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 was used
as a guide for developing this CTTN-TM.
Because of similar processes, similar contaminants, or geographic locations, six operable units
(OUs) have been established by Shield and will be referenced as such going forward in this
RUFS process. The six OUs at the site are;
1. The former acid production area on the west side of the site,
2. The main plant area in the central part of the site,
3. The former spray fields east and northeast of the main plant area,
4_ The Kelly ponds northeast of the main plant area,
5. The creeks generally on the north side of the site, and
6. The former Kaiser plant on the south side of the site.
In general terms the potential contaminants of concern can be summarized or grouped as follows:
0 Halides — The dominant halide identified at the site is chloride which listed as a
potential contaminant in all six OUs. Fluoride is the second most referenced halide

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 5
which was listed as a potential contaminant in the former acid production area, and the
former Kaiser plant_
• Salts - Sulfate was tabulated as a potential contaminant throughout all of the OUs at the
site.
• Metals — Metals were also listed as potential contaminants in all six of the OUs.
Though iron was the dominant listed metal and identified as present in the former acid
production area, the main plant area and one of the spray fields (see Table 4-6; Waller,
2012), this metal is not a hazardous substance under CERCLA, and therefore we have
not included it in the attached tables. Metals associated with low pH and impurities
within phosphorite were noted especially within the Kaiser portion of the site, located
south of the railroad track. Other metals associated with the roasting of pyrite (arsenic,
lead and iron) were identified in the former acid production area. The low pH of
groundwater in the area west of the main plant site is a contributor to elevated metal
concentrations in that area. The more commonly identified metals, many of which
were identified in the former acid production area and the main plant area, are
aluminum, arsenic, lead, manganese, sodium and vanadium.
• Nutrients such as ammonia and nitrates were listed as potential contaminants in all six
of the OUs at the site.
• Organics — Waller listed "organics" in general as potential contaminants in the main
plant area, the sprayfields, the Kelly ponds, and Mill Creek. Various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) were tabulated as potential contaminants for all of the OUs except
the former Kaiser site. Methanol was the most predominantly listed VOC having been
found to be present in areas east of the main plant area and the 20-acre sprayfield area
northeast of the main plant area.
• Semi-VOCs were listed as potential contaminants in the former acid production area
and the main plant area.

Wright Chemical Site
EP.41D 4,VCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Tesung Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-0.1 Page 6
• Miscellaneous — The remaining potential constituents range from low pH and acids to
hexamine and formaldehyde to pesticides and radionuclides, {see Table 1-1)_ Low pH
was listed primarily for the former acid production area, but also for the main plant
area. Hexamine is formed from combining formaldehyde and ammonia. The
hexamine also decomposes in the presence of a low pH to form formaldehyde and
ammonia. These constituents were identified as potential contaminants in all of the
OUs except the former Kaiser plant. Silanes, Siloxanes and related chemicals were
targeted as potential contaminants in the main plant area only.
• Elevated concentrations of some pesticides were identified in the former acid
production areas and the former Kaiser plant. Radionuclides were targeted or identified
to be present at the former Kaiser plant, and in the groundwater at select well locations
along the edge of the former acid production areas and the main plant area.
These bullets are not intended to represent every single constituent that is a potential contaminant
or exceeds a relevant screening level. Rather, these bullets are an attempt to present an overview
of the potential contamination at and around the site. On Table 1-1 Shield has highlighted
contaminants detected in specific areas at levels which exceed applicable screening levels by a
factor of 100. By these means we are better able to focus attention on the overall scope of Rl/FS
for this site, in order to better review candidate technologies for remediation at this site.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA 1D 4NCDO24766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 7
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Physical Characteristics
The site is bounded to the southwest by Fertilizer Road (old State Road #87) and to the southeast
by Neils Eddy Road. A wastewater treatment plant owned by Columbus County but operated by
Momentive (one of the current owners and operators of the former Wright Chemical plant) is
located on the western portion of the former Kaiser facility. The current features of the site are
shown on Figure 2-1.
The Site is composed mostly of brush, swamp vegetation and gravel areas. Within the plant
area, concrete pads and buildings cover a significant portion of the Site. The rest of the plant
area is covered by gravel. The surface water runoff from the plant area generally drains toward
an area where the cumulated stormwater is controlled by a pond, (the "Duck Pond"). Surface
water runoff from the rest of the property flows toward drainage ditches which direct the flow
toward Mill Creek and Livingston Creek located north and west of the Site, respectively.
Mill Creek is a tributary of Livingston Creek (see Figure 1-1). Mill Creek was formerly dammed
to form a pond to the north of the Wright Chemical site. Downstream of the dam, Mill Creek
flows south, then turns to the west and flows just north of the former Wright Chemical plant.
Mill Creek enters Livingston Creek near the northwest comer of the former Wright Chemical
plant.
Livingston Creek borders the Wright Chemical site to the west, and is about 29 feet wide and
about three feet deep in most locations. Livingston Creek's flow downstream of the Wright
Chemical facility property is slightly greater than 100 cubic feet per second. Livingston Creek
meanders in a general northerly direction for three miles through extensive wetlands, and then
flows into the Cape Fear River. There is tidal flow reversal in Livingston Creek (EPA, 2010)_
The Site topography is relatively flat within the area of the former and existing operational
buildings. The elevations in the operational areas of the Site range from 20 to 40 feet above

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID MICDO24766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing ,Feeds Technical Alemorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 8
mean sea level (MSL) as referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) .
Beyond these operational areas the ground surface elevations decline to about four (4) feet above
MSL as referenced to the NAVD88 along Mill and Livingston Creeks.
Potential contaminants of concern are present within the soils of the site, the groundwater
underlying the site. and the sediments along Mill Creek and possibly Livingston Creek.
Therefore, several candidate remedial technologies may be necessary for addressing each of
these different media. Additionally, the different mix of potential contaminants may also require
different candidate technologies. Hence, the purpose of this CTTN-TM is present a suite of
remedial technologies that have the potential to remediate either one or more of the potential
contaminants and/or one or more of the media in which the contaminant(s) are found to be
present.
2.2 Simplified Site Conceptual Model
A simplified conceptual site model is presented in this CTTN-TM to support identification of the
characteristics of the contaminant distribution to be treated so that appropriate technologies are
considered based upon site conditions. A more complete presentation of the conceptual site
model will be documented later in the Rl/FS report that is to be prepared at some later date.
A brief description of the simplified conceptual model includes five different zones as shown on
Figure 2-2. These five zones are described as follows:
• Zone l represents the original waste disposal unit. It could be a former process pond,
a spill area, waste discharge trench, or any other discharge source. The soils in these
areas will be tested for the presence of potential contaminants. if potential
contaminants are still present in the soils at the former waste discharge unit(s),
adjacent soil may either have to be removed as part of source remedial actions or
capped to minimize the potential for future leaching. While initially a possible
conduit for supplying contamination to the subsurface, no future impacts on the
groundwater will occur. Backfill and surface cover materials will influence the

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID #NCD014766719 September 1014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 9
degree that natural precipitation or water from human activities (e.g., irrigation) will
infiltrate these former source areas.
• Zone 2 is the vadose zone between the deepest part of the source excavation and the
highest elevations of the water table. In some areas of the site elevated
concentrations of contaminants may have migrated through this zone during plant
operations. Some sampling from soil borings within and beneath excavated waste
sites will enable the evaluation of this zone for the continued presence of
contaminants. If potential contaminants are still present within this zone below
former waste discharge unit(s) adjacent soil may either have to be remediated or
removed as part of source remedial actions or capped to minimize the potential for
future leaching.
• Zone 3 is the zone between the maximum and minimum elevation of the water table
downgradient from the source area. This zone is referred to as the "smear zone" or
the capillary fringe. During periods of unusually high water -table elevations (because
of high -river stage conditions), contaminated groundwater moves into the lower
vadose zone. When the water table returns to normal, some contaminants are left
behind in pore fluid and retained on soil particles, thus remaining as a potential
source for plume re -supply if unusually high water -table elevations return or if
rainwater percolates through the soil, leaching contaminants back into the water table.
Therefore, in the past during pond usage and contaminant disposal, elevated
concentrations of contaminants could have been leached into the smear zone (Zone 3)
and could possibly serve as a continuing source of contamination to the groundwater.
Typically contaminant storage in this zone has generally been observed in close
proximity to former source areas (Zone 1). Presently, with the limited
characterization of this site conducted in Zone 3, there is insufficient evidence to
determine the extent to which contamination in this zone is present, if at all, away
from known former source areas.

F
Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID *AICD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Afemorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 10
• Zone 4, located mainly in the water table aquifer. is the uppermost hydrologic unit
through which the contaminants potentially migrate toward either Mill or Livingston
Creeks. This water table aquifer consists primarily of surficial sand deposits of
Holocene age and undifferentiated deposits of Pleistocene and Pliocene age. The
presence of contaminants is observed in the groundwater of this water table aquifer.
These dissolved contaminant concentrations are influenced by sorption and
desorption interactions with aquifer soil/sediments within the floodplain and riverine
sediments depending on geochemical conditions.
• Zone 5, is a highly dynamic zone of interaction between groundwater and creek water
that infiltrates the banks and channel substrate to varying degrees, depending on creek
stage and hydrogeologic properties of aquifer sediments. Geochemical conditions
change rapidly within this zone because of chemical differences between groundwater
and creek water. Dilution of any contaminants in groundwater typically occurs in this
zone, prior to the ultimate discharge of groundwater into the Mill Creek - Livingston
Creek system.
The removal of a number of the original source areas (Zone I) has at least partially been
completed. The effectiveness of these removal actions will need to be confirmed within the
framework of the RUES Work Plan. Remedial technologies for the lower levels of the vadose
zone (Zone 2) are being considered herein. Within the context of the feasibility study, the
selection of remedial technologies and development of remedial strategies, the focus will be on
the smear zone (Zone 3) and the water table aquifer (Zone 4) where the contamination impacts
the groundwater quality. The interface zone between the groundwater and Livingston and Mill
Creeks (Zone 5) will be addressed incidentally by remediation of upgradient groundwater.
The RUFS Work Plan will propose field investigation to clarify our understanding of the
contaminant distribution outlined in the conceptual site model. Excavations of sludge and
sediments from four of the former ponds that were used as part of the wastewater treatment at
this site were placed within the monofill cell. However, confirmatory sampling records are

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID UNCDO24766779 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 1 I
unavailable for these removal activities to show that there are no remaining contaminants with
the potential to be future sources within Zones 1 and 2. These contaminants are expected to
migrate laterally within Zone 4, while leaving residual contaminants with Zone 3, as the
groundwater migration progresses toward Zone 5 (i.e., Mill and Livingston Creeks). The marsh
area or floodplain sediments are expected to be relatively flat and to have a relatively lower
hydraulic conductivity, due to finer particle sizes.
The lateral distribution of contaminants within the smear zone is not fully known. Nor is the
potential spread of the contaminants within Zone 4 known across the marsh area or floodplain
sediments.

Wright Chemical Sue
EPA ID 4-NCD014766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 11
3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Rl/FS Work Plan for this site is currently being drafted in accordance with the requirements
described in Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasihility Studies under
CERCLA (EPA 1988). This EPA guidance prescribes a process that includes the following
tasks:
1. Establish remedial action objectives
2. Develop general response actions
3. Inventory applicable technologies and management strategies
4. Screen appropriate technologies
S. Combine technologies into alternatives
6. Conduct preliminary screening of alternatives
7. Evaluate selected alternatives with nine criteria
8. Compare alternatives
9_ Develop a feasibility study report
10. Develop a proposed work plan.
The Rl/FS Work Plan is currently being prepared and will generally follow this outline. The
primary remedial action objectives are as follows:
1. Maintain or restore to the extent possible, the water table aquifer to its best beneficial use.
2. Maintain or restore to the extent possible, the condition of Mill and Livingston Creeks to
their best beneficial use.
3. Reduce risk to human health and the environment.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No, 1100044-04 Page 13
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGIES
This section identifies those remedial technologies that have the potential to be appropriate for
one or more of the various zones in which contaminants are found during the implementation of
the RUNS Work Plan. In order to reduce the potential for both ongoing monitoring for some
years into the future and further site characterization at some future date, the optimal approach
for identifying remedial technologies should include source control (i.e., Zones 1 and 2) as a
critical component for remediation.
The development of general response actions follows from the understanding of the source and
mechanism by which the groundwater likely becomes contaminated. Typically, causes of
persistent dissolved contaminants within groundwater, and ultimately the surface water, is the
long-term storage and periodic, pulse release of contaminants residing in lower vadose zone
soil sediments (Zone 2) and the smear zone soil/sediments (Zone 3) into the groundwater (Zone
4). Subsequent identification, evaluation, and selection of remedial technologies must treat the
source of the contaminants in the smear zone and possibly the lower vadose zone. The screening
of prospective remediation technologies follows from this fundamental view of the problem.
In order to provide a better overall review of remedial technologies, there are basically two
contaminated media present at the site. These media are the groundwater and the subsurface
soils/sediments and together they represent the majority of the potential contamination at this
site. As the remedial investigation progresses the interconnectivity between these media and
other media at the site will be better understood. Hence, this review of candidate technologies is
focused toward these two media, keeping in mind the site conceptual model presented in Section
2.2. The inventory of remedial technologies consists of 20 prospective technologies for the
vadose zone, 12 prospective technologies for the smear zone, and 29 prospective technologies
for groundwater.

Wright Chemical Site
EP.9 1D 4NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 14
5.0 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
The screening process is presented in this section. Section 5.1 presents the remediation strategy.
Geochemical considerations that control the efficacy of remedial technologies are discussed in
Section 5.2, and Section 5.3 presents the screening criteria. Sections 5.4 through 5.6 present the
screening of technologies for each targeted matrix.
5.11 Remediation Strategy
The treatment of the contaminant source in the smear zone, and possibly the lower vadose zone,
to reduce the availability of contaminants to the groundwater and/or reduction of its mobility if it
does reach the groundwater, appears to be a more effective remediation strategy. The challenge
is how this stabilization, isolation, or interception is to be accomplished.
Physical encapsulation or in -situ stabilization of the contaminants would have to be applied in a
horizontal, planar geometry over a wide area. The typical methods for contacting the subsurface
are excavation and mixing or contacting via wells or boreholes through which reagents are
applied. The capability of such techniques to contact treatment volumes depends on depths
requiring treatment and the ability of injection in the boreholes to spread reagents. For the
borehole approach generally a large number of closely spaced injection points are required.
A second approach is to apply liquids to groundwater and use groundwater flows to laterally
spread reagent. The reagent then reacts to stabilize or isolate the contaminant where contact is
made. This process implies a chemical technology. Chemical technologies are available for
treating certain types or groups of contaminants. However, to screen appropriate chemical
technologies for further consideration, an understanding of contaminant chemistry is required.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1/ 00044-04 Page 15
5.2 Geochemical Considerations
The mobility of contaminants within environmental surface and subsurface systems is highly
variable, based on the geochemical environment in which the contaminants are present. The
principal variables affecting the environmental geochemistry of contaminants are the oxidation
potential (Eh), pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, depth to the water table, composition of the
aqueous pore fluid (especially the concentrations of complexing ligands such as dissolved
bicarbonate/carbonate [HCO3-/CO32-]), and sediment mineralogy. These variables affect the
reduction/oxidation (redox) state, aqueous complexation, precipitation/dissolution, and
adsorption/desorption of contaminants, which in total determines the mobility of the contaminant
within the environmental system.
The primary variable determining the mobility of metals within environmental systems is their
oxidation state. Table 5-1 exhibits the prevalence of metal exceedances identified within the soil
and sediment media in the Preliminary Remedial Investigation Report (Waller, 2012). The more
prevalent metals found within the solid media exceeding either NC or EPA screening levels used
by Waller (2012) include in order of prevalence vanadium, cobalt, arsenic, manganese and
mercury (see Table 5-1). All of these metals exhibit various common oxidation states, ranging
from five for manganese; four for vanadium; two for each of arsenic, and cobalt; and, one for
mercury. Three of these metals are transition metals that are located within the periodic table at
the top of their respective groups (cobalt, manganese, and vanadium). One feature of these
transition metals is that the stability of the lower oxidation states progressively increases toward
the top of the group. Hence, lower oxidation states for each of the transition metals has greater
stability, and this state is therefore more prevalent under normal circumstances.
Additionally, EPA (see Table 1: 1988) categorizes the metals into two groups based on certain
fundamental characteristics. These groupings are labeled as volatile metals, and non-volatile
metals. Those metals identified by Waller (2012) and listed in Table 5-1 are shown with their
categorization using Table 1 (EPA, 1988). In general, the volatile metals belong to the higher
group numbers within the periodic table, and do not include the transition metals (except for

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID gArM4766719 September 201.1
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Alemorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 16
mercury). These differentiations for the metals present at the site may impact the selection of
potential remedial technologies.
Another factor within the subsurface environment across the site is whether reducing or
oxidizing (redox) conditions are prevalent within the water table aquifer. Basically, these
conditions are a family of reactions that depend on the transfer of electrons between species.
These reactions are similar to acid -base reactions, as an oxidation reaction does not occur
without an opposite reduction reaction occurring at the same time. Generally, the reduction of
metal ions within the subsurface environment leads to less mobile metallic compounds that
remain in place within the subsurface environment.
The presence and composition of ligands, temperature, and pH of the system will determine the
environmental fate of the metals present within the vadose zone and aquifer soils/sediments in
the area of the site. Metal speciation and stable ranges for aqueous species for the metals is
based on a function of pH and their ligand concentrations and these should be considered in
order to formulate possible geochemical management strategies.
The geochemistry of the various metals provides a context where candidate in -situ chemical
technologies may be evaluated within the screening process. Remedial strategies based on in -
situ chemical stabilization will be only as effective as the geochemistry of the site permits. Such
chemical technologies may be generally grouped according to the following paradigm. This
framework assists in understanding the technology screening.
• Redox Technologies — These technologies attempt to manipulate oxidation-reduction
conditions of the subsurface to reduce the metals to more stable forms. The techniques
that include in -situ redox manipulation may consist of sodium dithionite, zero-valent
iron, microbial induced reduction, and calcium polysulfide technologies. One common
deficiency of technologies in this category is that the reduced environment and
corresponding metal precipitate is easily re -oxidized over time. Consequently, over time
the "treated" metal may be remobilized. It may be possible, depending upon the kinetics
of the remobilization oxidation, to meet remediation goals in the saturated zone for

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1 ]00044-04 Page 17
groundwater if remobilization were slow enough to result in metal concentrations below
cleanup criteria.
•. Precipitation Technologies — These technologies apply and modify an additive with
metallic ions to farm a removable soluble compound and prevent further dissolution of
the metal by sequestration, immobilization, or precipitation. The resulting reaction seeks
to create a stable, long-lasting reaction that removes the source of ongoing metal
contamination to the groundwater. Newly developed and developing approaches offer a
variety of application techniques and reagent types. However, this group of technologies
requires further development.
• Flushing Technologies — This group of remediation technologies uses a variety of
leaching solutions to dissolve solid -phase metal followed by hydraulic extraction
techniques to remove the solubilized metal with lixiviant residuals. This technology
group is basically an extension of in -situ mining that has been practiced since the 1960's.
Carbonate flushing solutions are typically employed. Subsurface stratigraphic
heterogeneities make comprehensive treatment difficult to attain. Hydraulic capture and
capture of the mobilized metals or organics can be problematic.
In general, these geochemical considerations are primarily appropriate for assessing remedial
technologies associated with ionic solutions (e.g., low pH, metals, salts, etc.)_ However, other
considerations are appropriate for assessing remedial technologies dominantly associated with
organic contaminants and these are incorporated as the testing needs identified for these
technologies presented within Tables 5-6, 5-8 and 5-10.
5.3 Screening Criteria
Potentially applicable technology types and process options were identified and screened in
accordance with CERCLA guidance using effectiveness, and implementability as criteria to
eliminate those options that are the least feasible, and to retain those options that are considered
most viable. The following criteria were considered in evaluating each technology under

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID nA'CD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1/ 0004-04 Page 18
conditions specific to each treatment matrix or zone contributing to or containing the groundwater
contamination. As discussed in Section ??. three zones were considered:
• Lower vadose zone soiUsediments (Zone 2),
• Smear zone (Zone 3) formed by the fluctuating water -table interface, and
• Saturated soils/sediments and groundwater within the water table aquifer (Zone 4).
A technology is considered effective if it is proven capable of or there is relatively low technical
uncertainty associated with performance of the technology in the targeted matrix over the time
period necessary to affect a permanent reduction of dissolved contamination in groundwater. A
technology is considered implementable if proven capable of being constructed and deployed in
the soils/sediments found at the Wright Chemical Site at the required depths below ground
surface and operating at the necessary scale. The technology also must not interfere with other
technologies, if it does not address all of the contaminated volume, and must not pose potentially
significant administrative issues (e.g., use of potentially unacceptable reagents).
See Tables 5-5, 5-7, and 5-9
For the technologies that passed the screening as effective and implemeniable, a third criterion,
testing needs, is then evaluated. The purpose of identifying the testing needs at this stage of the
CERCLA process is to identify what data will need to be collected during the RUFS Work Plan,
in order to provide the tools for establishing the technical rationale in selecting one remedial
technology over another remedial technology.
Remedial technologies are not required to address the entire volume of the contaminated media
at the site, if they do not operate in a way that prevents combination with another technology as
part of a multiple technology approach to remediation of the contaminated media present at the
site.

Wright Chemical She
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 19
5.4 Screening of Technologies for Vadose Zone Soil/Sediments
Screening of remediation technologies for the vadose zone is presented in Table 5-5. Table 5-6
presents the testing needs for assisting in the decision making process for selecting optimal
remedial technology.
Contaminant residuals may be encountered in soil/sediments directly below former source areas
(Zone 1), such as the sites of the former treatment ponds. Former pond sludges and sediments
were removed and placed within the monofill cell back in the early 1990s. However, no
confirmatory sampling has been identified to confirm there are no remaining contaminants
within the soils underlying the locations of these former ponds. Back in the early 1990s, it is
possible that the excavation depths in these former pond areas did not extend to the water table.
Consequently, residual contaminants may still be present in this deeper portion of the vadose
zone on soil/sediment and in associated pore water that may migrate downward under some
conditions as a source of contamination to the groundwater within the water table.
Twenty technologies applicable to the lower vadose zone soil/sediments were identified and
considered in the screening process. One physical technology, further excavation, was identified
as being effective and technically implementable. Though possibly large volumes of
uncontaminated overburden would require handling, excavation of the remaining contaminated
sediment/soil may be cost effective, particularly if it is part of a related construction excavation.
Several stabilization technologies (i.e., in -situ and ex -situ) are judged to be effective,
implementable, and economical. Application of soil flushing technology would be facilitated if
the soils above the water table are found to be relatively more porous than the underlying soils in
the water table aquifer. Effective distribution and application of a reactive form.of a reagent is
difficult in the relatively dry soil. The application of a mobilizing lixivant, analogous to solution
mining, would require not only application infrastructure but also an effective collection
infrastructure, making the relative cost higher than a reagent stabilization technology application.
Other chemical and biological technologies are either ineffective due to reaction reversibility or
application difficulties.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID 9NCDO24766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing:Veeds Technical ilemorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 20
The technical needs for assisting in the evaluation of these remedial technologies would include
parameters such as assessments of the contaminants and their concentrations; volume of
uncontaminated overburden, the vertical extent of contamination_ the lateral extent of the
contaminated portion of the lower vadose zone underlying the source areas, ease of flushing
these contaminated soils using injection wells and the radius of influence of injection into this
zone, and chemical parameters for the contaminated soils from this zone. Testing needs are
identified within Table 5-6.
5.5 Screening of Technologies for Smear Zone SoiVSediments contributing to
Groundwater Contamination
Screening of remediation technologies for the smear zone is presented in Table 5-7. Table 5-8
presents the testing needs for assisting in the decision making process for selecting optimal
remedial technology.
The soil/sediment in the fluctuating smear zone (Zone 3) is the conduit for contaminants to enter
groundwater from source areas above and is potentially a repository of these contaminants acting
as a source to groundwater contamination during either high creek stage or groundwater
elevations. The Zone 3 vertical dimensions vary with temporal changes in the water -table level
associated with changes in Livingston Creek or Mill Creek water levels (hence the term "smear
zone."). This interface zone between the fully saturated aquifer below and the vadose zone
above consists of soil/sediment with varying degrees of sorted contaminants and pore water
containing dissolved contaminants. Control or removal of contaminants in this zone would
prevent their continuing replenishment into the water table aquifer.
The thickness of the groundwater smear zone is unknown at this site. Consequently, access to
this zone entails passage through the overlying vadose zone that may or may not be
contaminated, depending upon proximity to the original contaminant source area. Eight
technologies were identified to be considered in the screening process. Two physical

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 11
technologies (e.g., selective excavation, and pressure grout injection) were identified as being
effective and technically implementable.
Though significant volumes of uncontaminated overburden would require handling, excavation
of the remaining contaminated soil/sediment may be cost effective, particularly if part of a
related construction excavation. Dewatering of contaminated soiVsediment, and handling of
vadose soiVsediment overburden could incur significant costs. Pressure grouting of the targeted
smear zone is technically difficult to affect beyond a radius of about 5 feet. Stabilization of the
targeted zone by grout stabilization may be judged to be effective, implementable, and
economical. Application by infiltration of grout may be facilitated if the fill above the targeted
residual zone is relatively more porous. Other chemical and biological technologies may be
found to be effective due to recent remedial technical developments, other constituent reactions
that may be found to be permanent, or recent enhancements of application.
The technical needs for assisting in the evaluation of these remedial technologies would include
parameters such as assessment of the contaminants and their concentrations, volume of
uncontaminated overburden, the depth and lateral extent of the smear zone underlying the site,
ease of dewatering the contaminated soils from the smear zone, capability and radius of
influence of pressure grouting this zone, and chemical parameters for these contaminated soils.
Testing needs are identified within Table 5-8.
5.6 Screening of Groundwater Technologies
Screening of both legacy and new technologies for groundwater is presented in Table 5-9. Table
5-10 presents the technical needs for assisting in the decision making process for selecting
optimal remedial technology. Groundwater remediation will focus on the water table aquifer
underlying the site.
Three passive management practices, such as land -use restrictions, access controls, and
monitored natural attenuation, were kept for further consideration in the remediation alternative

Wright Chemical Site
EPA 1D #AICD014766719 Seplemher 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Projecl No. 1100044-04 Page ??
step. These three passive actions will be the basis of the baseline remedial alternative for the
feasibility study.
Twenty-eight technologies for groundwater remediation have been identified for consideration.
These technologies either involve some combination of pumping and treating groundwater, ex -
situ or in -situ hydraulic barriers. Treatment technologies were considered independent of the
hydraulic control or extraction technologies. Recent advances in remediation technology have
introduced some additional technologies that focus on in -situ treatments. Table 5-9 presents the
results of the evaluation of these groundwater remediation technologies according to
effectiveness and implementability.
The testing needs for the evaluation of each of these remedial technologies are summarized in
Table 5-10. Technologies that rely on water extraction, even if hydraulically successful, will
only address the symptom but not the cause and source of the contamination. The naturally
occurring groundwater flows are expected to be limiting hence making delivery of in -situ
treatments more difficult to implement at the site. These technologies are dependent upon the
ability of recovering groundwater from the water table aquifer within the area. Also, the
interconnectivity within the water table aquifer is an important aspect of designing effective
remedial technologies.
Chemical technologies are dependent upon the chemistry of the subsurface regime underlying
the site in order for their success to be realized during implementation of these technologies.
Treatment of the extracted groundwater ex -situ is generally not cost effective unless combined
with some other in -situ stabilization technology to address the contamination source. Presently,
there are several remedial technologies that appear to offer the best prospects for active treatment
of volatile organics and semi -volatile organics in the groundwater (e.g., air-sparging, bioreactors,
and advanced oxidation processes). However, remedial technologies for addressing the
inorganics have few in -situ options. Several remedial options are available for the inorganics
such as ex -situ reverse osmosis and ion exchange, but the negative aspects of these ex -situ
technologies are that the original sources are not being remedaated.

Wright Chemical Size
EPA ID #NCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 23
Based on the variable mix of constituents found at this site, there may be a need for the
implementation of several different remedial technologies for each of several areas of the site in
order to effectively remediate site contaminants.
The technical needs for assisting in the evaluation of these remedial technologies would include
parameters such as assessments of the contaminants and their concentrations, volume of the
contaminated area, the vertical extent of contamination, depths to a confining layer, the lateral
extent of the contaminated portion of the aquifer, basic aquifer parameters, radii of pumping
and/or air sparge influence, ease of flushing the contaminated aquifer, and chemical parameters
for the contaminated water. Testing needs are identified within Table 5-10.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID 4ACD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing A'eeds Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 24
6.0 SUMMARY OF TESTING NEEDS SCREEN
Recent characterization (Waller, 2012) has identified the potential presence of contaminants
within the soils, potentially within the water table zone soil/sediments and groundwater.
Potential remediation technologies have been identified to reduce contaminant concentrations in
groundwater underlying the site. The remedial technology inventory was designed to include
multiple methodologies that have the capability to remediate either one or more of these
contaminant sources.
As previously discussed, ignoring potential source areas will lead to ongoing groundwater
remediation for longer than necessary, hence the assessment of at least Zones 2. a, and 4
identified in the Simplified Conceptual Site Model is important for a successful remediation at
the site.
Twenty remedial technologies or management techniques for contaminated soil/sediment in the
deeper vadose zone (Zone 2) were initially identified in Table 5-5. Based on the criteria of being
effective and implementable these remedial technologies were reduced to sixteen remedial
technologies. These were reviewed for testing needs as listed in Table 5-6.
Eight remedial technologies or management techniques for the smear zone (Zone 3) were
initially identified in Table 5-7. Based on the criteria of being effective and implementable these
remedial technologies were reduced to seven remedial technologies. These were reviewed for
testing needs as listed in Table 5-8.
Twenty-eight remedial technologies or management techniques for groundwater (Zone 4) were
initially identified in Table 5-9. Based on the criteria of being effective and implementable these
remedial technologies were reduced to twenty-two remedial technologies. These were reviewed
for testing needs as listed in Table 5-10.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA 1D 4NCDO24766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 25
Overall remedial strategies for the site may be developed by combining selected remedial
technologies into multiple alternatives based on the results of this technology screening. The
alternatives may possibly incorporate different assemblages, sequencing, and application to the
different areas/zones. The detailed analysis and comparison of the remedial alternatives will
form the basis of the feasibility study.
The testing needs identified within Tables 5-6, 5-8, and 5-10 are summarized as follows:
• Soil analyses to include manganese, pH, Eh, Oil & Grease; TOC, CEC, nutrients;
• Soil characteristics (sieve analyses, hydrometer, Atterburg limits, bulk density, specific
gravity);
• Natural oxidant demand and buffering capacity for subsurface regime.
• Assessment of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) parameters in groundwater as per
EPA, 1998;
• Groundwater analyses to include manganese, pH, Eh, BOD, COD, Oil & Grease; TOC,
TSS, nutrients;
• Aquifer characteristics (transmissivity, storativity, rate of groundwater flow, groundwater
gradient);
• Determination of injection capabilities for injecting air, grout, water, and amendments
into water table aquifer;
• Compatibility of introduced materials with groundwater and soils/sediments;
• Characterization (depth, continuity, confining permeability, thickness) of underlying
confining layer below water table;
• Water flow data for Livingston Creek;
• Water quality data for Livingston and Mill Creeks (use same analyses as used for
groundwater at the site); and
• Ability of each remediation technique to address the potential contaminant(s) of concern.
Some of these analyses may have been a component of the RI/FS Work Plan, that
notwithstanding they are identified above to assure that these analyses or investigations are made
a part of the Rl/FS Work Plan. The horizontal and vertical extent of the potential contaminants

Wright Chemical Site
EPA ID iNCD024766719 September 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing .feeds Technical memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 26
will be determined for all five zones of the Simplified Conceptual Site Model within the RI/FS.
Thereby the data necessary for assisting in the selection of remedial alternatives will be readily
available for the decision makers.

Wright Chemical Site
EPA 1D #NCD024766719 Septemher 2014
Candidate Technologies and Testing Needs Technical Memorandum Revision 0
Shield Project No. 1100044-04 Page 27
7.0 REFERENCES
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988. Technology Screening Guide for
Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges, EPA/540/2-88/004, September 1988.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998. Technical Protocol for
Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water, EPA/600/R-
98/128, September 1998.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014. Region 4 Administrative
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (AOC) for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Wright Chemical Corporation Superfund Site,
Riegelwood, Columbus County, North Carolina. Signature date of June 13, 2014.
Waller, J.M. Associates, Inc. 2012. Final Pre -Remedial Investigation Report, Wright Chemical
Corporation Site. Atlanta, Georgia. October, 2012.

Pat McCrory, Governor
co Y
>_ r-
May 7, 2013
Mr. Red Lewis
Oak -Bark Corp.
333 Neils Eddy Rd.
Riegelwood, NC 28456
John E. %varia ill., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject- Review of Preliminary Lagoon Closure Plan
Oak -Bark Corp., Permit No. WQ0003361, Columbus County
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Charles Wakild, P.E. Dire vor
Division of Water Quality
have reviewed the plan for closing out the Kelly Ponds. It is understood that pond liquids were
removed and land applied as a (licensed) bulk fertilizer product. Oak -Bark considers it
desirable to leave sludge and liner in place and then collapse earthen containment berms and
fill with clean soil to the land grade elevation.
It may be possible to close out the Kelly ponds as mentioned above. If all liquids have been
land applied, there would not be any reason to follow the wastewater sampling requirements
defined within Attachment A, Item A for wastewater. In order to assess the quality of sludge
that is desired to be left in place, sludge sampling per Attachment A, Item C would be needed.
Because this is a permit associated with groundwater monitoring requirements, Division staff
would like to see recent monitoring well sampling results (monitoring wells 22,23,25, & 26) for
nutrient series constituents, semi volatile organic constituents(semi vol. per EPA CLP list) ,
fluoride, sulfate, formaldehyde, and fecal coliform bacteria.
If there are some constituents within down -gradient monitoring wells that exceed GA class
groundwater standards, additional monitoring may be required to demonstrate a downward
trend. If sludge sampling shows that some constituents exceed the hazardous characteristics
criteria or.groundwater soil concentrations for NC based upon 2L standards (see Closure
Guidelines document, Section 16(b)(i)) the sludge cannot be left in place and must be properly
disposed.
If you have additional questions or wish to talk further, please contact me at 910-796-7341.
nper lY
im Bushardt, P.
Environmental Engineer
Jb:oak-bark.513
Cc: Wilmington APS Piles N aiCaT obna
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 29405
Wilmington Regional Office Phone [phone] Customer Servict
Internet: www.nckvateLQuualitv.ore Fax [phone]W 1-877-623-6748
An Equal OpportunitylAffirrrrative Action Employer - 50% ReCyded! i0°% Post Consurner Paper

Bushardt, Jim
From:
Red Lewis [[e-mail]]
Sent:
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:59 PM
To:
Bushardt, Jim
Subject:
jSPAM]Draft Lined Pond Closure
Attachments:
Lined Pond Closure Plan 4.30.13.doc
Jim,
Thanks for your time on the phone today.
As we discussed, Please review the attached, with the understanding that this is only a very early start of what I hope
will become a permit request to allow DBC to close both of our lined lagoons.
Make any changes, comments & / or additions that you think will help me proceed.
Thanks
RL

Lined Pond Closure Plan
Prepared By:
Wilber E. Lewis
Plant manager
Oak -Bark Corporation
333 Neils Eddy Rd
Riegelwood N.C. 28456
April 30 2013

Table of Contents
Section
Description
1.0
Introduction / History
2.0
Purpose
3.0
Closure Plan Guidelines
4.0
Pond Closure Procedure
5.0
Future Use and Erosion Control (Attachment B)
6.0
Final Closure Report
6.1
Sampling Results
6.2
Disposition of all Sludge & water
6.3
Contractors
6.4
Closure Certificates (NCDENR APS)

Section 1.0
Introduction I History
In 1992 Wright Corporation constructed a 2.3MM gallon lined lagoon to facilitate the
closure of four "Unlined Waste Water Lagoons In 1997 two more lined lagoons were
installed and the original lined lagoon (Kelly Pond 41) was decommissioned under
NCDENR's guidelines.
These lined lagoons contained the original waste water from the unlined lagoons and
process waste water from our Hexamine production.
In 2004 Wright Corporation was sold and all assets were transferred to the newly formed
Oak Bark Corporation.
Oak Bark continued the operation of the two remaining lagoons under NCDENR permit
# WC0003361 Groundwater Remediation Facility.
In 2006 Oak Bark sold 60% of it assets to Hexion, including the Hexamine Production
Unit. Oak Bark retained ownership of the two 2.3MM Gallon Lined Waste Lagoons
(Kelly Ponds 1 & 2). At that time all piping and transfers of waters between the "plant"
and the Kelly ponds were severed, making the Kelly ponds static (no waters in, no waters
out). Oak Bark continued operation the two Kelly Ponds in this state until January of
2009. At this time NCDENR's, Environmental Engineer, Mr. Jim Bushardt preformed a
facility inspection and requested that Oak Bark change the permit status from a
Groundwater Remediation Facility to a Closed Loop Recycle System. Since all piping
connections had been severed in 2006, the "Closed Loop Recycle Permit would more
closely reflect the operations of the two Kelly Ponds. This permit retained the same
permit number WQ0003361.
In November of 2009, Oak Bark contracted with Eco-gen to perform a feasibility study to
determine if the water contained in the two Kelly Ponds could be land applied as a
fertilizer. The goal was to eventually close both Kelly ponds out. On November 17, 2009,
Eco-gen was issued a NCDA Permit # 000001743 to land apply these waters as a
nitrogen fertilizer.
Eco-gen has since removed all the waters from both Kelly Ponds. It is Now Oak Bark's
goal to obtain a Pond Closure Permit to close both Kelly Ponds.

Section 2.0
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to notify NCDER- APS that Oak Bark intends to close
both of the above listed 2.3MM Gallon Waste Water lagoons and to provide a closure
plan that incorporates and complies with the pond closure plan as set forth in NCDENR's
memorandum of June 22, 2012.
This document will describe Oak Bark's closure plan, and insure that each step complies
with NCDENR Aquifer Protection Guidelines

Section 3.0 Oak Bark Pond Closure Plan Guidelines
I. Closure Checklist (Section 4.0)
11. Historical Use (see Section 1.0)
III. Future Plan For The Site
IV. Disposal Options For The Contained Waste Water (see Section 1.0, paragraphs 4 &
5)
V. Disposal Options For Sludge
VI. Sampling Plan For Residual Water and Sludge

Section 4.0
Pond Closure Checklist
4.1
Complete DENR Checklist (attachment A)
Page 7
4.2
Include Water Sample Analysis
Eco-Gen Data
4.3
Issue Contract with a NCDENR Approved Hydro Geologist_
4.4
Remove & Dispose of Top Cover Meeting NCDENR Guidelines
Approved Landfill
4.5
Determine Amount & Sample Analysis of Sludge
sampling plan to be
determined
4.6
Determine Disposition of Sludge Base on 4.3 as Compared With
4.7
Leaving the Engineered Liner in Place, Collapse the Sidewalls in &
Grade to Level as Determine By Approved Hydro Geologist
4.8
Seed Top to Inhibit Erosion
4.9
Continue Ground Water Sampling at MW 22,23,25 & 26 For Next
three (3) Sampling Events
4.10
Determine Ground Water Impact From 49
4.11

ATTACHMENT A CLOSURE OF PERMITTED WASTEWATER PONDS AND
LAGOONS
Checklist and Instruction Items
The purpose of the following checklist and instruction items is to aid in the development of a closure plan
for a permitted Non -Discharge wastewater pond or lagoon to be submitted to the appropriate APS Regional
office for approval.
The following checklist allows the applicant to identify the type of lagoon to be closed, and the preferred
closure and disposal options. The selected options include references to instruction items (e.g. Item A)
found on subsequent pages of this attachment. The instruction items describe what steps are expected to be
complete prior to approval of the closure plan, `including expected sampling and monitoring, and final
certifications of complete closure. Note that the following steps are not all inclusive, as each site is unique
and may have varying site conditions. In addition, flowcharts (Attachment B) have been provided as an
alternate to the instructional Items A-H. These charts contain the same information. but give a visual
representation of the closure process. For questions, contact the approving APS Regional Supervisor.
Please check all items below that apply and submit a completed copy with the lagoon closure plan.
I. Type of Pond or Lagoon System
a. Primary and Secondary Biological Wastewater Lagoon Systems (examples: food processing
treatment
lagoons. municipal treatment systems without pretreatment programs, neighborhood treatment systems).
_X b. Primary and Secondary Industrial Wastewater Lagoon Systems(examples; non-food type industrial
treatment systems, municipal treatment systems with pretreatment program).
c. Tertiary Wastewater Pond Systems ( examples: wastewater biological treatment systems with
tertiary
treatment to include infiltration disposal pond systems, effluent polishing pond systems).
11. Closure Options - Structure
_ a. Conversion to Non -Wastewater Pond - Change of Use (Item B)
_X_ b. Complete or partial removal of structure (Items G)
_X_ c. Site Reclamation (Item F and H)
III. Final Liquid and Solid Content Disposal Options
a. Wastewater Disposal to Onsite Permitted Field (Item A)
b. Wastewater Disposal through Pump and Haul (Item A)
c. Sludge Disposal to Permitted Site (Items C and D)
_X d. Sludge Left in Place (Items C and E)
IV_ Sampling and Monitoring Requirements
a. Wastewater Sampling Required (items A and B)
b. Soil and Sludge Sampling Required (Items C and F)
_X_ c. Groundwater Monitoring Required (Item G)
V. Final Certification Required for Closure Activities, as required in Item 1.
_X_ a. Structural Deconstruction (Professional Engineer or Hydrogeologist)
b. Wastewater Disposal (Facility ORC)

c. Sludge Disposal (ORC i Licensed Sludge Land Application Contractor)
d. Other (Explain: )
Attachment A A-1 Iune 22, 2012

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 23, 2013
To: Ed Hardee
c
From: Jim Bushard?rp),WQ00003361,
Subject: Oak Bark Co Columbus Co.
Ed,
The subject facility is permitted for closed loop recycle and it
used to be permitted for groundwater remediation. There were never
any groundwater remediation activities performed under Permit
WQ0003361 and DWQ reissued permit as closed loop recycle because
industrial liquids produced at the former Wright Chemical Corp
site(now partially Oak -Bark Corp. & partially Momentive)were being
stored in two lined/capped lagoons known as the Kelly Ponds.
The writer was informed by representatives of the DWM--Hazardous
Waste Section that liquids were being removed from these ponds. The
writer met with Oak -Bark Corp. Management and was informed that
the liquids were being land applied to area farms and that the
liquids have been registered as an NCDA fertilizer product known as
Eco-Solutions 5--0-0(product ID # 47752).
Enclosed are records concerning the liquids removal activity. 1
have included my email history. Considering the uniqueness of this
land application activity I suggest that this information be
considered as an annual report.
If you have questions, please contact me.
Jb:oak-bark.113

Bushardt, Jim
From: Bushardt, Jim
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:30 PM
To: Nelms, Robert; Cooper, Narvi
Subject: FW: Oak -bark kelly ponds, wgOD03361, col co
From: Bushardt, Jim
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:29 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: King, Morella s
Subject: Oak -bark kelly ponds, wg0003361, col co
Good day Red,
Did you phone number change from 655-6980? 1 would like to come to oak -bark and inspect the Kelly ponds. I have
been informed by a representative of the Division of waste management that one of the ponds is almost empty and that
oak bark is providing the pond contents to farmers for fertilization. I would like to see for myself and quiz you on that
subject. The permit wg0003361 is a recycle permit and does not allow land application to liquids to occur. There is no
permitting procedure to follow in regard to land application of liquids. It does contain some language about sludge
disposal and I hope that oak -bark has not misinterpreted the permit. Anyway, would it be possible for us to meet next
week 7th, 811 or 111h? Please let me know.jb

Bushardt, Jim
From:
Bushardt, Jim
Sent:
Monday, May 07, 2012 1:59 PM
To:
Risgaard, Jon
Cc:
King, Morelia s
Subject:
oak -bark, wg0003361, col co (formerly wright chem)
Yo jon,
I need your input. The subject facility is a couple of synthetically lined/capped ponds containing contact wastewater
from a hexamine and formaldehyde plant. The liquids have been stored since 2005 or longer. Wright chemical split up
the industrial site and oak -bark kept the Kelly ponds and we gave them a renewal as recycle system although no
recycling is being done. Permit originally was for gw remediation which was also never done. Their new neighbor,
momentive (was briefly hexion) was given a permit for a recycle system supporting hexamine and formaldehyde plants
got momentive to remove sludge from their recycle pond to get more volume. It was a big deal, hazardous folks
watched over sludge being sent to Sampson county landfill (nothing was deemed hazardous).
So while at environmental seminar last week, I see bobby nelms (haz waste section of dwm). He tells me that oak -bark
is removing liquids from Kelly ponds and giving it to area farmers for fertilizer. I have a meeting with oak -bark plant
manager, red lewis on Wednesday. I told him by phone that his permit does not allow oak -bark to give the stuff to
farmers, that there are not characterization requirements to define nutrient strength or for assessment personal health
threats, and not to give any more of it away.
My question, the liquids can be called industrial waste. I'm not sure that we could call them sludge. Should I send mr
lewis to permitting unit for permit change to allow reuse of industrial waste (a sludge permit or a spray permit)?jb

11�
Bushardt, Jim
From:
Bushardt, Jinn
Sent:
Friday, May 11, 2012 7:52 AM
To:
Risgaard, Jon
Cc:
icing, Morelia s
Subject:
oakbark, wg0003361, col co
Attachments:
WQ0003361. pdf
Jon, pis see the attached. If you did not tell mr kiser or mr autry that we would not be involved with the application of
registered fertilizer, I need to know now. Thanks jb

r
Compliance Inspection Report
Permit: W00003361 Effective: 03/06/09 Expiration: 02/28/18 Owner: Oak -Bark Corporation
SOC: Effective: Expiration: Facility: Riegelwood, NC Manufacturing Facility
County: Columbus 333 Neils Eddy Rd
Region: Wilmington
Riegelwood NC 28456
Contact Person: Shawn S King Title: Environmental Manager Phone: [phone]
Directions to Facility:
System Classifications: PC1,
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 05/0912012 Entry Time: 09:30 AM
Primary Inspector: James B Bushardt
Secondary Inspector(s):
Reason for inspection: Routine
Permit Inspection Type: Wastewater Recycling
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
0 Disposal units
(See attachment summary)
Exit Time: 11:00 AM
Phone: [phone]
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Page: 1

Permit: W00003361 Owner - Facility: Oak -Bark Corporation
Inspection Date: 05109/2012 inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
This report concerns an investigation conducted by the writer on May 8 and 9, 2012 concerning the land application of
liquids from the Kelly Ponds. The writer was informed by Division of Waste Management staff -Hazardous Waste Section
that liquids were being removed from the Kelly Ponds and land applied on area farmland. The DWQ operational permit
(WQ0003361) does not allow the land application activity. The Oak -Bark staff were contacted and indicated that the Kelly
Pond liquids were being land applied on area farmland. Additionally, the Oak -Bark Corporation contracted with Eco-Gen
Solutions, LLC to have Eco-Gen get these liquids registered as a fertilizer product for use in North Carolina. Staff at
Eco-Gen provided a copy of Permit No. 000001743, dated 11/17/2009, concerning the reporting requirements of
commercial fertilizer and inspection fee of $0.50 per ton applied. Eco-Gen staff also provided an NCDA letter that
described a successful fertilization empirical study of the 5.72% nitrogen solution, and product characterization for
nitrogen, phosphate, and including the ten heavy metal pollutants. This information is enclosed for your convenience. A
site visit to the Kelly Ponds occurred on 05/09/2012 to observe the liquid levels within each pond. Eco-Gen staff (Greg
Kiser and Wayne Autry) indicated that they had been in contact with the writer and Jon Risgaard (DWQ-APS permit Unit
Supervisor) concerning the proposal to land apply the liquid as a registered fertilizer. Eco-gen Staff indicated that
DWQ-APS staff considered the land application of a registered fertilizer product to not be regulated under Permit
W00003361. The writer followed up by reviewing NCGS 106 (NCDA Statutes) and by contacting Mr. Danny Turner,
Supervisor of the NCDA Fertilizer Section, about specific registration information concerning the Kelly Pond liquids. NCDA
indicated that the Kelly Pond liquids were registered as Eco-Solutions 5-0-0 (registered on 10/5/09). The manufacturer's
1D is 017430000. The product ID was 44037 and was changed to 47752. On 05/10/2012, Oak -Bark Staff were contacted
by the writer and informed that the land application activity could continue and that they could contact the writer about
follow-up activities to close out the lagoons and to rescind the permit.
It is requested that Oak -Bark Staff obtain land application records from Eco-Gen and provide the information to the writer
concerning land application activities that have occurred and for future land application activities. The information should
reference Oak -Bark Kelly Ponds and Permit No. W00003361 to help with DWQ records -keeping activities. For the
reporting of future land application activities, it is requested that future reports be presented on or before March 1 for the
land application activities occurring within the previous calendar year. For example, initial report would cover all land
application activities to date (05/10/2012) submitted as soon as possible and follow-up report covering from 05/10/12 to
12/31/2012 submitted by March 1, 2013, and follow report submitted by March 1, 2014 for calendar year 2013 land
application operations, if performed. This reporting strategy is consistent with DWQ's current land application reporting
strategy.
Page: 2

Bushardt, Jim
From: Greg Kiser [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:33 AM
To: Bushardt, Jim
Subject: Eco Gen Fertilizer
Attachments: SAdmin-C4501 2050810160.pdf
Mr. Bushardt, thank you for speaking with Wayne Autry and myself this morning regarding the fertilizer we have been
removing from the "Kelly Ponds" near Riegelwood. Per our conversation, attached please find the NCDA permit 41743
and corresponding analysis.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if there is any further information we may be able to provide.
Sincerely,
Greg Kiser
President
Shamrock Environmental Corporation
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Browns Summit, NC 27214
336-375-1989 Office
336-478-1207 Direct Line
336-375-1801 Fax
336-420-3007 Cell
www.shamrockenviro.com
SHAMROM
l n4��or.u�tit�t tW �b�+�: �47ti

s -
t
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Steve Trvzlcr Terri l7vcrtoa
Commissioner and Consumer Services Director
N. David Smith Budget and Finance Divisions Ra4di Sarhntn
DZputy Commissioner Revenue Auditor
November 17, 2009
333 37 000001743
ECO-GEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
503 PATTON AVE
GREENSBORO, NC 27406
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is Fertilizer Reporting Permit ##1743 which requires you to file monthly reports for payment of
the Inspection Fee and Agricultural Foundation Assessment on your commercial fertilizer and fertilizer
materials sold in the State of North Carolina The permit is effective November 17, 2009 and your first
report will be due for November 30, 2009 and should include all tonnage shipped into North Carolina
prior to that date.
Report forms are enclosed for your use in filing the monthly inspection fees_ We will appreciate your
cooperation in submitting a report to this office by the fifteenth of each mouth for the preceding month.
A report must be submitted each month even if there is no tonnage to report. Such reports should be
executed properly and carry the statement "0".
Enclosures
Sincerely,
Randi Barham
Revenue Auditor
E-Mail: [e-mail]
1001 Mail Service Center, Rakigh, NC 27699-1001 a (919) 733-21 i3 exi. 250 a Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
Steve Trotter, Commissioner
Raleigh, North Carolina
FERTEUZER REPORTWG'SYSTEM
u)'Q -
Revenue A,tiitor
Dept. of Budget & Fir== IOU 1 Mail Service Center, Wdeth NC 27699-[091 • [phone] ext. 250 • FM (919) 715-9M5
An Equal 4ppowaily AMrmative Action Employer

SHAMROCK MV.,t tN A,� CO°I
13361 G95-ENO, 7923 r. I P. 1
Steven W. Traxier North Carolina Depaziment of Agriculture
Gaaurrissioner and Consumer Services
Agronomic Division
Dr. GotW= Hud2k-wse
Duedor
TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: ' David Dycus, Regional Agronomist ~
NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer S 'ces
SUBJECT: 5.72% Nitrogen Solution
Alan Sawyer asked me about the usability/salability of a 5.729/6 nitrogen
solution in the winter of 2DO8. I gave him the contact inforrnation forDanny
Turner, head of the Department's fertilizer section. I also suggested we
apply some to smEdl grain to observe. I told him I saw no problems wifih the
analysis of the material with the exception being due to its low percent
nitrogen, transportation and application costs would be excessive.
Alan applied some of the material in two places that I observed and sampled
during the growing season. One being a small test area within a grain field
_ . -fie-other being in -a 1 acreteltsl-grain... I saw na adverse affr4t�---
of using the material on the grain. 'There was no leaf burn or other signs of
the material being -applied. There was no difference in tiller or head counts_
as the check field had 50-05 hea.ds/sgA and the test area had 49.89
heads/sq.ft. The check field had the traditional 30% liquid nitrogen. applied.
Tissue'saWles were pulled once during the growing season and no
differences were present either.
1W Ma7SerA= Center, Raieigh, North Gerofma 27E94-1o4A
(919) 733MS a Fsx (019) 733,2637
TTY 1-WO 73549M Vol= 14377-733-6nD
An Equal OppmvtityA rinv ive A=rcn Emptvyw

THORNTON LABORATORIES
TESTING & INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
1145 E. Cass 5t, Tampa, FL 33502
Phone: [phone]TO2 Fax: [phone]
WNNV.THORNTONLAB_COM
1-Dec-2009
Page I of 1
Report For:
Sample Identification:
KP 12P, Composite, TeB
Date Received: 10-Nov-2008
Laboratory Number: 318062
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Method Paramete- Result Units
AOAC 978.02
Nitrogen,
Total (N)
5.82 4
AFPC
XI.15.A
Nitrogen,
Ammoniacal (N)
1.34 %
EPA
353.2
Nitrogen,
Nitrates (N)
< 0.02 %
AOAC
945.01
Nitrogen,
water Insoluble (N)
0.10 %
TN -
WIN
Nitrogen,
Water Soluble (N)
5.72 %
AOAC
958.01
Phosphate,
Total (P205)
0.04 %
AOAC
963.03
B (a)
Phosphate,
Citrate Insoluble (P205)
< 0.01 %
AOAC
960.02
Phosphate,
Available (r205)
0.03 %
AOAC
95a.02
Potassium,
Water Soluble (K20)
< 0.1 %
AOAC
9B0.02(b)
Sulfur, Total (5)
0.60 %
THORNTON LABORATORIES
Steve Fickett, III
Thornton Laboratories Testing & Inspection Services, Inc. responsibility far the above analysis, opinions,
or interpretations is limited to the invoice amount.

THORNTON LABORATORIES
7 TESTING & INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Report For:
Sample Identification:
1145 E. Cass St, Tampa, EL 33602
Phone: [phone] Fax: B13-223-9332
WWW.THORNTONLAB.COM
KP #2P, Composite, TeB
Date Received: 25-Nov-200 8
Laboratory Number: 31SO52A
CERTIFICATE
OF ANALYSIS
'
Analysis
performed by Millennium
Labotatori es, Inc. (fE94699).
Method
Parameter
Result
Units
EPA
7061A
Arsenic (As), Total
< 0.25
mg/xq
EPA
7130
Cadmium (led) , Total
< 1
mg/Kg
EPA
"119C
Chromium (Cr), Total
< 2.5
mq/Kq
EPA
72U
Cobalt (Ca), Total
< 3
mq/Kg
EPA
7220
• Copper {Cu), Total
< 2.5
mq/Kq
EPA
742C
Lead (Pb), Total
< 5
mg/99
EPA
7471A '
Mercury (Hg), Total.
< 0_02
mq/Kg
E2A
5010
Molybdenum [Mo), Total
9.3
mq/Kq
EPA
7520
Nickel (Ni), Total
< 2.5
mg/Kg
EPA
7741A
Selenium (Se), Total
< 0.75
=91Kq
EPA
7950
Zinc (Zn), Total
2.B
mg/Kg
EPA
30509
Digestion/Preparation
for AA Analysis 2.0092-100
4-Cec-2006
Page 1 of 1
Analysis
Detection Limit Date Analyst
0.005
4-Dec-200e
Sandy Rathbun
0.C2
2-Dec-2C05
Sandy Rathbun
0.05
5-Dec-2rcu
Sandy Rathbun
0.1
4-Dec-2009
Sandy Rathbun
0.05
2-Dec-200e
Sandy Rathbun
0.1
4-Dec-20CS
sandy Rathbun
0.02
4-*Doc-2008
Subcontract Lab.
0.2
4-Dec-23Ce
subcontract Lab.
0.15
2-Dec-2008
Sandy Rathbun
0.005
4-Dec-2775
Sandy Ra hbun
0.05
2-Dec-20H
Sandv Rathbun
2-Dec-2000
Sandy Rathbun
THORNTON LABORATORIES
Steve Fickett, III
Project Manager
Thornton Laboratories Testing & Inspection Services, Inc_ responsibility for the above analysis, opinions,
or interpretations is limited to the invoice amount.

Bushardt, Jim
From: Greg Kiser [[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:29 PM
To: Bushardt, Jim
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: EcoGen Shipping Report
Attachments: EcoGen Shipping Report Summary 012213.xis
Mr. Bushardt, at the request of our customer, attached please find an Excel spreadsheet with two tabs at the bottom.
The first tab is a record of all EcoGen shipments from the Kelly Ponds from the first shipment thru May 10, 2012. The 2nd
tab is a record of all shipments between May 11, 2012 and December 31, 2012.
Please verify your receipt of this email and feel free to let me know should you have any questions regarding the
attachment.
Sincerely,
Greg Kiser
President
Shamrock Environmental Corporation
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Browns Summit, NC 27214
336-375-1989 Office
336-4 78-1207 Direct Lire
336-375-1801 Fax
336-420-3007 Cell
www.shamrockenviro.com

Removal of water from Oak Bark Kelly Ponds, bulk liquid fertilizer containing 5% nitrogen
OAK -BARK Permit WQ0003361 Density of nitrogen enriched water = 9.345
Buyer
BOIL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonna a
Tons of
Nitrogen
Cobb & Black Farms
NIA
5/18/2012
5,384.00
48,609.84
24.25
1.33
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
5/18/2012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Gerrin er Farms
NIA
5118/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24.28
1.33
Cobb & Black Farms
NIA
5/2512012
5,342.00
48,131.42
24.07
1.32
Gerrin er Farms
NIA
5/25/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Apple Farms
NIA
5125/2012
5,420.00
48,834.20
24.42
1.34
Gerrin er Farms
NIA
6/1/2012
5,341.00
48,122.41
24.06
1.32
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
6/8/2012
5,391.00
48,572.91
24.29
1.33
Gerringer Farms
NIA
6/1512012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
6115/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24,24
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
6/20/2012
5,391.00
48,572.91
24.29
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
6/20/2012
5,392.00
48,581.92
24.29
1 33
Carson Mears
NIA
6/20/2012
5,398.00
48,635.98
24.32
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
6120/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24.28
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
6/2112012
5,396.00
48,617.96
24,31
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
6/21/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
6/21/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24.28
1.33
AM Clapp Farms
NIA
6/22/2012
5,395.00
48,608.95
24.30
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
8/7/2012
5,381.00
48,482,81
24.24
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
8/7/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
8/7/2012
5,384.00
48,509.84
24.25
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
818/2012
5,391.00
48,572.91
24.29
1.33
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
8/8/2012
5,361.00
48,302.61
24.15
1.32
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
8/1712012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
8/31/2012
5.380.00
48,473,80
24.24
1,33
Andy Clap2 Farms
NIA
91712012
5,394,00
48,599.94
24.30
1.33
Jerry Apple Farms Browns
NIA
9/21/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Piney Woods Farm
NIA
9/2812012
5,380,00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
:Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
9/28/2012
5,382.00
48,491.82
24.25
1.33
Applewood Farms
NIA
11112/201211
5,380,00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Keck Farm
NIA
12/712012
5,600.00
50,456.00
2523
1.38
Cobb & Black
NIA
12/19/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Gerin er Farms
NIA
12/19/2012
5,320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
177,893.00
1,602,815.93
801.44
43.91

Removal of water from Oak Bark Kelly Ponds, bulk liquid fertilizer containing 5% nitrogen
OAK -BARK Permit W00003361 Density of nitrogen enriched water = 9.345
Buyer
BOIL #
Date
Gallons
Tota! Pounds
ota
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Sa er Farms
NIA
6?15/2010
3,600.00
32,707.50
16.35
0.82
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
70910
7/912010
5,100.00
47.659.50
23.83
1.19
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
072010-1
7/20/2010
4,560.00
42,610.00
21.31
1.07
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
072010-B
7/20/2010
4,655.00
43.500.00
21.75
1.09
Morris Farm
NIA
3/9/2011
5,399.56
48,650.00
24.33
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
3/9/2011
5,221.98
47,050.00
23.53
1.29
Morris Farm
1
3/9/2011
4,700.33
42,350.00
21.18
1.16
Morris Farm
4
3/9/2011
4,800.22
43,250.00
21.63
1.19
Morris Farm
7
3/9/2011
4,813.54
43,370.00
21.69
1.19
Morris Farm
NIA
3/9/2011
5,349.61
48,200.00
24.10
1.32
Morris Farm
NIA
3/9/2011
5,338.51
48,100.00
24.05
1.32
Morris Farm
NIA
3/10/2011
5,305.22
47,800.00
23.90
1.31
Morris Farm
10
3/10/2011
4,689.23
42,250.00
21.13
1.16
Morris Farm
NIA
3/10/2011
5,277.47
47,550,00
23.78
1.30
Morris Farm
NIA
3/10/2011
51277.47
47,550.00
23.78
1.30
Morris Farm
13
3/11/2011
4,622.64
41,650.00
20.83
1.14
Morris Farm
15
3/11/2011
4,650.39
41,900.00
20.95
1.15
Morris Farm
NIA
3/11/2011
5,394.01
48,600.00
24.30
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
3/11/2011
5,332.96
48,050.00
24.03
1.32
Morris Farm
NIA
3/15/2011
4,811,32
43,350.00
21.68
1.19
Morris Farm
NIA
3/15/2011
5,388,46
48,550.00
24.28
1.33
Morris Farm
N/A
3/15/2011
5,366.26
48,350.00
24.18
1.32
Morris Farm
NIA
3/15/2011
5,410.65
48.750.00
24.38
1.34
Morris Farm
N/A
3115/2011
5,329.63
48,020,00
24.01
1,32
Apple Farms
NIA
3/10/2011
5,271,92
47,500.00
23,75
1.30
Apple Farms
NIA
3/11/2011
5,349.61
48,200.00
24.10
1.32
Apple Farms
3
3/11/2011
4,683.68
42,200.00
21.10
1.16
Apple Farms
1022
3/16/2011
5,399,56
48,650.00
24.33
1.33
Apple Farms
N/A
3/16/2011
5,321,86
47,950.00
23.98
1.31
Apple Farms
NIA
3/16/2011
4,811.32
43,350.00
21.68
1.19
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
N/A
3/10/2011
5,227.52
47,100.00
23.55
1.29
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
1
3/10/2011
4,689.23
42.250.00
21.13
1.16
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
NIA
3/10/2011
1,882.91
16,965.00
8.48
0.46
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
4
3/15/2011
4,772.48
43,000.00
21.50
1,18
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
NIA
3/15/2011
5,382.91
48,500.00
24.25
1,33
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
NIA
3/15/2011
5,376.25
48,440.00
24.22
1.33
,Grassy Bay Turf Farm
5
3/15/20111
4,700.33
42,350.001
21.18
1.16
Confidential 1/23/2013 Page 1

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
8
3/16/2011
4,749.17
42,790.00
21.40
1.17
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
NIA
3/16/2011
5,305.22
47,800.00
23.90
1.31
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
01
3/30/2011
4,794.67
43,200.00
21.60
1.18
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
02
3/30/2011
4,816.87
43,400.00
21.70
1.19
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
03
3/30/2011
4,750.28
42,800.00
21,40
1.17
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
04
3731/2011
4,68923
42,250.00
21.13
1.16
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
05
3/31/2011
4,750.28
42,800.00
21.40
1.17
Grassy Bay Turf Farm
06
3/31/2011
4,805.77
43,300.00
21.65
1.19
Andy Clapp Farms
01
4/1/2011
4,705.88
42,400.00
21.20
1.16
Old Oakes Farm
01
4/612011
4,785.79
43,120.00
21.56
1.18
Old Oakes Farm
02
4/6/2011
4,843.51
43,640.00
21.82
1.20
Old Oakes Farm
03
4/6/2011
4,784,68
43,110.00
21.56
1.18
Old Oakes Farm
04
4/612011
4,7%20
42,520.00
21.26
1.17
Old Oakes Farm
1
4/6/2011
5,382.91
48,500.00
24.25
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
2
4/712011
5,466.15
49,250.00
24.63
1.35
Old Oakes Farm
3
4/7/2011
5,360.71
48,300.00
24.15
1.32
Old Oakes Farm
4
4/7/2011
5.449.50
49,100,00
24.55
1.35
Old Oakes Farm
5
4/7/2011
5,299.67
47,750.00
23.88
1.31
Old Oakes Farm
6
4/7/2011
5,427.30
48,900.00
24.45
1.34
Old Oakes Farm
6
4/7/2011
4,739.18
42,700,00
21.35
1.17
Old Oakes Farm
7
4/8/2011
5,394.01
48,600.00
24.30
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
8
4/8/2011
5,471.70
49.300.00
24.65
1.35
Old Oakes Farm
9
4/8/2011
5,471.70
49,300.00
24.65
1.35
Andy ClappFarms
1
4/812011
5,255,27
47,350.00
23.68
1.30
R.B. Greeson Farms
1
4/812011
4.716.98
42,500.00
21.25
1.16
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/11/2011
4.840.18
43,610.00
21.81
1.19
Old Oakes Farm
5
4/11/2011
5,382.91
48,500.00
24.25
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
4
4/11/2011
5,159.82
46,490.00
23.25
1.27
Old Oakes Farm
2
4/11/2011
5,477.25
49,350.00
24.68
1.35
Old Oakes Farm
1
4/11/2011
5.349.61
48,200.00
24.10
1,32
Old Oakes Farm
3
4/11/2011
5,360.71
48,300.00
24.15
1.32
Old Oakes Farm
N/A
4/12/2011
5,037.74
45,390.00
22.70
1.24
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/12/2011
4,938.96
44,500,00
22.25
1.22
Old Oakes Farm
4
4/12/2011
5,466,15
49,250.00
24.63
1.35
Old Oakes Farm
3
4/12/2011
4,938.96
44,500.00
22.25
1.22
Old Oakes Farm
2
4/1212011
5,159.82
46,490.00
23.25
1.27
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/12/2011
5,405.11
48,700.00
24.35
1.33
Andy Clapp Farms
NIA
4/12/2011
5,088.79
45,850,00
22.93
1.26
R.B. Greeson Farms
1
4/12/2011
4,785,79
43,120.00
21.56
1.18
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/13/2011
5,397.34
48,630.00
24.32
1.33
Confidential 1123/2013 Page 2

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/13/2011
5,427.30
48,900.00
24.45
1.34
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/13/2011
5,341.84
48,130.00
24.07
1.32
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/13/2011
5,399.56
48,650.00
24.33
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/13/2011
5,360.71
48,300.00
24.15
1.32
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/13/2011
5.394.01
48,600.00
24.30
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/13/2011
5,394.01
48,600.00
24.30
1.33
Chandler Worley
2
4/14/2011
4,933.41
44,450.00
22.23
1.22
R.B. Greeson Farms
1
4/14/2011
5,394.01
48,600.00
24.30
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
N/A
4/14/2011
5,366,26
48,350.00
24.18
1.32
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/14/2011
5,394.01
48,600.00
24.30
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/14/2011
6,416.20
48,800,00
24.40
1.34
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/1412011
5,438.40
49,000.00
24.50
1.34
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4/14/2011
5,405.11
48.700.00
24.35
1.33
Old Oakes Farm
NIA
4114/2011
5,405.11
48.700.00
24.35
1.33
R.B. Greeson Farms
NIA
4/15/2011
5,011.10
45,150.00
22.58
1.24
Jer Aeele Farm
NIA
4/15/2011
5,011.10
45,150.00
22.58
1.24
Grassy Bay Turf Farms, Inc
3
4/20/2011
4,772.48
43,000.00
21.50
1,18
Grassy Bay Turf Farms, Inc
2
4/20/2011
4,778.02
43,050.00
21.53
1.18
Grassy Bay Turf Farms, Inc
1
4/20/2011
4,761.38
42,900.00
21.45
1.18
R.B. Greeson Farms
NIA
4/21/2011
4,744.73
42.750.00
21.38
1.17
Gerringer Farms
6
5/20/2011
3,390.68
30,550.00
15.28
0.84
Andy Claee Farms
4
5120/2011
3,346.28
30,150.00
15.08
0.83
Jerry Apple Farm
NIA
5/25/2011
5,028,86
45,310.00
22.66
1.24
Gerringer Farms
060211-3
6/212011
5,091.01
45,870.00
22.94
1.26
Carson Mears Farms
060211-2
6/2/2011
5,083.24
45,800.00
22.90
1.25
Carson Mears Farms
060211-1
6/2/2011
5,163.15
46,520.00
23.26
1.27
Gerringer Farms
N/A
7/18/2011
5,026.64
45,290.00
22.65
1.24
Carson Mears
NIA
8/22/2011
5,388.46
48,550.00
24.28
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
8/22/2011
5,427.30
48,900.00
24.45
1.34
Carson Mears
NIA
6/23/2011
5,443.95
49,050.00
24.53
1.34
Chandler Worley Farm
1020
8/23/2011
5,499.45
49,550.00
24.78
1.36
Chandler Worley Farm
NIA
8/23/2011
5,504.99
49,600.00
24.80
1.36
Jer A le
NIA
8/24/2011
5,257.49
47,370.00
23.69
1.30
Carson Mears
NIA
10/5/2011
5,447.28
49,080.00
24.54
1.34
Carson Mears
NIA
10/5/2011
5,251.94
47,320.00
23.66
1.30
Carson Mears
NIA
10/5/2011
4,523.86
40,760.00
20.38
1.12
Chandler Worley Farm
1
10/412011
5,051.05
45,510.00
22.76
1.25
Chandler Woriey Farm
2
10/412011
5,493.90
49,500.00
24.75
1.36
Chandler Worley Farm
NIA
10/512011
5,027.75
45,300.00
22.65
1.24
Jerry Apple
I NIA
10/5/2011
4,690,34
42,260.00
21.131
1.16
Confidential 1123/2013 Page 3

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
AM Clapp Farms
NIA
10/5/2011
5,288.57
47,650,00
23.83
1.31
Grassy Bay Farm
1
10/4/2011
4,886.79
44,030.00
22.02
1.21
Grassy BayFarm
2
10/4/2011
5,253.05
47.330.00
23.67
1.30
Grassy Bay Farm
NIA
1117/2012
5,277.47
47,550.00
23.78
1.30
Grassy Bay Farm
N/A
1/17/2012
5,138.73
46,300.00
23.15
1.27
Grassy Bay Farm
NIA
1/17/2012
5,205,33
46,900.00
23.45
1.29
Grassy Bay Farm
NIA
1/17/2012
5,105,44
46,000.00
23.00
1.26
Grassy Bay Farm
NIA
1/1812012
4,850.17
43.700.00
21.85
1.20
Chandler Worley Farm
NIA
1/18/2012
5,172.03
46,600.00
23.30
1.28
Chandler Worle Farm
NIA
1/18/2012
5,072.14
45,700.00
22.85
1.25
Cobb & Black Farms
NIA
1/18/2012i
5,172.03
46,600.00
23.30
1.28
Cobb & Black Farms
N/A
1/18/2012
5,099.89
45,950.00
22.98
1.26
Grassy Bay Farm
NIA
113l/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24.28
1.33
Chandler Worley Farm
NIA
1/31/2012
5,388.00
48,545.88
24.27
1.33
Chandler Worle Farm
NIA
1/31/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24.28
1.33
Chandler Worley Farm
NIA
211/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Alcorn Farms
NIA
2/1/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24.28
1.33
Grassy Bay Farms
NIA
2/7/2012
5,389.00
48,554.89
24.28
1.33
Grassy Bay Farms
NIA
2/7/2012
5,361.00
48,302,61
24.15
1.32
Chandler Worley Farm
NIA
2/712012
5,393,00
48,590.93
24.30
1.33
Chandler Worley Farm
NIA
2/7/2012
5.392.00
48,581.92
24.29
1.33
Grassy BayFarms
N/A
2/8/2012
5,361.00
48,302.61
24.15
1.32
Chandler Worley Farm
nla
2/8/2012
5,392.00
48,581.92
24.29
1.33
Jerry Apple
NIA
218/2012
5,361.00
48,302.61
24.15
1.32
Andy Clapp Farms
NIA
2/12/2012
5,392,00
48,681.92
24.29
1.33
Chandler Worley Farm
1
2/13/2012:1
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Morris Farm
2
2/13/2012
5,006.00
45,104.06
22.55
1.24
Morris Farm
1
2/13/2012
5,006,00
45,104.06
22.55
1.24
Chandler Worle Farm
N/A
2/14/2012
5,320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
Morris Farm
3
2/14/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Morris Farm
4
2/14/2012
5,006.00
45,104.06
22.55
1.24
Morris Farm
N/A
2/14/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Chandler Woriey Farm
NIA
2/14/2012
5,361.00
48,302.61
24.15
1.32
Morris Farm
NIA
2/15/2012
5,405.00
48,699.05
24.35
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
2/15/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24,28
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
2/15/2012
5,254.00
47,338.54
23.67
1.30
Morris Farm
NIA
2/15/2012
5,254.00
47,338.54
23.67
1.30
Grassy Bay Farms
NIA
2/15/2012
5,384.00
48,509.84
24.25
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
2/15/2012
5,361.00
48,302.61
24.15
1.32
Chandler Worley -Farm
N/A
2/15/20121
5,361.00
48,302,611
24.15
1.32
Confidential 1/23/2013 Page 4

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Morris Farm
NIA
2116/2012
5,380.00
48.473.80
24.24
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
2/16/2012
5,346.00
48,167.46
24.08
1.32
Morris Farm
NIA
2/16/2012
5,157.00
46,464.57
23.23
1.27
Grassy Bay Farms
NIA
2/16/2012
5,348.00
48,185.48
24.09
1.32
Grassy Bay Farms
NIA
2/16/2012
5,310.00
47,843.10
23.92
1.31
Morris Farm
NIA
2/16/2012
5,361.00
48,302.61
24.15
1.32
Grassy Bay Farms
NIA
2/16/2012
5,382.00
48,491.82
24.25
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
2/17/2012
5,310.00
47,843,10
23.92
1.31
Morris Farm
NIA
2/17/2012
5,392.00
46,581.92
24.29
1.33
Keck Farms
NIA
2/17/2012
5,384.00
48,509.84
24.25
1.33
Jer Apple
NIA
2/17/2012
5,157.00
46,464.57
23.23
1.27
Morris Farm
NIA
2/17/2012
5,369,00
48,374.69
24.19
1.33
Morris Farm
NIA
2/17/2012
5,371.00
48,392.71
24.20
1.33
Morris Farm
N/A
2/17/2012
5,381.00
48,482.81
24.24
1.33
Jerry Apple
N/A
2/21 /2012
5,240.00
47,212.40
23.61
1.29
Andy Clapp Farms
NIA
2/21/2012
5,389.00
48,554.89
24.28
1.33
Andy Clapp Farms
NIA
2121/2012
5,320,00
47,933.20
23.97.
1,31
Lara Gerrin er
NIA
2/22/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Larry Gerrin er
NIA
2/22/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Mike Clapp
NIA
2/24/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Keck Farms
NIA
2/28/2012
5,389.00
48,554.89
24.28
1,33
Chandler Worley Farm
1
3/1/2012
5,348.00
48,185.48
24,09
1.32
Chandler Worle Farm
2
3/1/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Ronnie Johnson Farms
1
3/1/2012
5,254.00
47,338.54
23.67
1.30
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/2/2012
5,110.00
46,041.10
23.02
1.26
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/2/2012
5,389.00
48,554.89
24.28
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
312/2012
5,428.00
48,906.28
24.45
1.34
Larry Gerrin er
NIA
3/2/2012
5,206.00
46.906.06
23.45
1.29
Ronnie Johnson Farms
5
3/2/2012
5,206,00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Ronnie Johnson Farms
2
3/2/2012
5,157,00
46,464,57
23.23
1.27
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/312012
5,089.00
45,851.89
22.93
1.26
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00003
3/612012
5,372.00
48,401.72
24.20
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00001
3/6/2012
5,361.00
48,302.61
24.15
1.32
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00004
316/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Lovett Farms
00006
3/6/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00002
316/2012
5,000.00
45,050.00
22.53
1.23
Lovett Farms
00001
3/7/2012
5,362.00
48,311.62
24.16
1.32
Chandler Worley Farm
000001
3/7/2012
5,420.00
48,834,20
24.42
1.34
Ronnie Johnson Farms
000 71
3/7/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00005
3/7/20121
5,382,00
48,491.821
24.25
1.33
Confidential 1/23/2013 Page 5

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00008
3/7/2012
5,056,00
45,554,56
22.78
1.25
Chandler Worley Farm
00010
3/712012
5,000.00
45,050.00
22.53
1.23
Ronnie Johnson Farms
000010
3/7/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/8/2012
5,391.00
48,572.91
24.29
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/8/2012
5,378.00
48,455.78
24.23
1.33
Lovett Farms
00002
3/8/2012
5,371.00
48,392.71
24.20
1.33
Lovett Farms
00016
3/8/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00012
318/2012
5,000.00
45,050.00
22.53
1.23
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00014
3/8/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Ronnie Johnson Farms
00016
3/8/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Clapp Farms
NIA
3/9/2012
5,400.00
48,654.001
24.33
1.33
Clapp Farms
NIA
319/2012
5,400.00
48,654,00
24.33
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/9/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Faucett Farms
NIA
3/9/2012
5,056.00
45,654.56
22.78
1.25
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/13/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Lovett Farms
N/A
3/13/2012
5,384.00
48,509.84
24.25
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/13/2012
5,393.00
48.590.93
24.30
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/13/2012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Ronnie Johnson Farms
N/A
3/1312012
5,382.00
48,491.82
24.25
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/13/2012
5,370,00
48,383,70
24.19
1.33
Jerry Apele Farm
n/a
3/14/2012
5,000.00
45.050.00
22.53
1.23
Dan York Farms
n/a
3/14/2012
5,344.00
48,149.44
24.07
1.32
Jerry Apple Farm
NIA
3/14/2012
5,000.00
45,050.00
22.53
1.23
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/14/2012
5,395.00
48,608,95
24.30
1.33
Lovett Farms
N/A
3/1412012
5,400,00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
NIA
3/14/2012
5,157.00
46,464.57
23.23
1.27
Ronnie Johnson Farms
1
3/14/2012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Ronnie Johnson Farms
2
3/14/2012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Faucett Farms
NIA
3/15/2012
5,000.00
45,050.00
22.53
1.23
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/15/2012
5,392.00
48.581.92
24.29
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/15/2012
5,392.00
48,581.92
24.29
1.33
Faucett Farms
NIA
3/15/2012
5,000.00
45,050.00
22,53
1.23
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/15/2012
5,392.00
48,581,92
24.29
1.33
Lovett Farms
N/A
3/1512012
5,386.00
48,527.86
24,26
1.33
Claep Farms Clapp
N/A
3/15/2012
5,206,00
46,906.06
23.45
129
Keck Farms Julian, NC
NIA
3/16/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Apple Field Farms
NIA
3/16/2012
5,392.00
48.581.92
24.29
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
N/A
3/16/2012
5,386.00
48,627.86
24.26
1.33
Chris Dobins
NIA
3/17/2012
5,600.00
50,456.00
25.23
1.38
Chris Dobins
NIA
3/18/2012
5,600m
50,456.00
25.23
1.38
Confidential 1123/2013 Page 6

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/19/2012
5,410,00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/19/2012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24,37
1.34
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/19/2012
5,440.00
49,014.40
24.51
1.34
Gary ❑illinger
NIA
3/20/2012
5,510.00
49,645.10
24.82
1.36
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
5/20/2012
5,321.00
47,942.21
23.97
1.31
Larry Gerringer Farms
NIA
3/20/2012
5,389.00
48,554.89
24.28
1.33
Gary Dillin er
NIA
3/21/2012
5,491.00
49,473.91
24,74
1.36
Clapp Farms
NIA
3/21/2012
5,189.00
46,752.89
23,38
1.28
Carson Mears Farm
NIA
3/21/2012
5,322.00
47,951.22
23,98
1.31
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/21/2012
5,321.00
47,942.21
23.97
1.31
Carson Mears Farm
NIA
3/22/2012
5,320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
Carson Mears Farm
NIA
3/22/2012
5,322.00
47,951.22
23.98
1.31
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/22/2012
5,322.00
47,951,22
23.98
1.31
Larry Gerrin er Farms
NIA
3/22/2012
5,310.00
47,843.10
23.92
1.31
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/23/2012
5,320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
Greg Cox Farms
NIA
3/23/2012
5,322.00
47,951.22
23.98
1.31
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/28/2012
5,391.00
48,572.91
24.29
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/28/2012
5,280.00
47, 572.80
23.79
1.30
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/28/2012
5,328.00
48,005.28
24.00
1.32
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/28/2012
5,325.00
47,978.25
23.99
1.31
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3I2912012
5,320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/29/2012
5,367.00
48,356.67
24.18
1.32
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
N/A
3/29/2012
5,314,00
47,879.14
23.94
1.31
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/29/2012
5,340,00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Kevin Clemmons Farm
NIA
3/29/2012
5,374.00
48,419.74
24.21
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/29/2012
5,325.00
47,978.25
23.99
1.31
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/30/2012
5,376.00
48,437.76
24.22
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
3/30/2012
5.310,00
47,843.10
23.92
1.31
Lovett Farms
N/A
3/30/2012
5,364.00
48,329.64
24.16
1.32
Ronnie Johnson Farms
N/A
3/30/2012
5,311.00
47,852.11
23.93
1.31
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
3/30/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Ronnie Johnson Farms
N/A
3/30/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Jerry Apele Farm
N/A
3/30/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Dan York Farms
NIA
3/31/2012
5,305.00
47,798.05
23.90
1.31
Johnny Ha a Farms
NIA
4/2/2012
5,360.00
48,293.60
24.15
1.32
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/2/2012
5,391.00
48,572.91
24.29
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/2/2012
5,360.00
48,293.60
24.15
1.32
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
4/212012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
1
4/3/2012
5,206,00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
2
4/3/2012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Confidential 1/23/2013 Page 7

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Grassy Bay Turf Farms
3
4/3/2012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
413/2012
5,385.00
48,518.85
24.26
1.33
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
413/2012
5,310.00
47,843.10
23.92
1.31
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/3/2012
5,394.00
48,599,94
24.30
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/3/2012
5,410.00
48.744.10
24.37
1.34
Johnny Hoe Farms
1
4/4/2012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Johnny Hoe Farms
2
4/412012
5,205.00
46,897.05
23.45
1,28
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/412012
5,206,00
46,906,06
23.45
1.29
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/4/2012
5,384.00
48,509.84
24.25
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/4/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/4/20121
5,394.00
48,599.94
24.30
1,33
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
4/4/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24,06
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/512012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
4/5/2012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/5/2012
5,387.00
48,536.87
24.27
1,33
Clapp Farms
NIA
4/5/2012
5,396.00
48,617.96
24.31
1.33
Ronnie Johnson
NIA
4/5/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1.33
Jerry Apple Farms
40512
4/5/2012
5,206.00
46,906.06
23.45
1.29
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
4/6/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Jerry Apple Farms
N/A
4/6/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/6/2012
5,324.00
47,969.24
23.98 1
1.31
Keck Farms
NIA
4/6/2012
5,130.00
46,221.30
23.11
1.27
Gerrin er Farms
NIA
4/612012
5,374.00
48,419.74
24.21
1.33
Ronnie Johnson Farms
NIA
4/6/2012
5,120.00
46,131.20
23.07
1.2fi
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/10/2012
5,321.00
47,942.21
23.97
1.31
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/10/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/10/2012
5,394.00
48.599.94
24.30
1.33
Johnny Hoe Farms
N/A
4/10/2012
5,343.00
48,140,43
24.07
1.32
Lovett Farms
NIA
4111/2012
5,335.00
48,068.35
24.03
1.32
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
4/11/2012
5,325.00
47,978.25
23.99
1.31
Lovett Farms
N/A
4/1112012
5,340.00
48,113,40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/11/2012
5,390.00
48.563.90
24.28
1.33
Lovett Farms
N/A
4/11/2012
5,401.00
48,663.01
24.33
1.33
Jerry Apple Farms
N/A
4/11/2012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/12/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/12/2012
5,330.00
48,023.30
24.01
1.32
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/12/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
41201
4/1212012
5,157.00
46,464.57
23.23
1.27
Johnny Hoe Farms
41202
4/12/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Rick Morris Farms
41203
4/12/2012
5,157.00
46,464.57
23.23
1,27
Confidential 1123/2013 Page 8

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Rick Morris Farms
NIA
4/1312012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Ward Farms
NIA
4/13/2012
3,435.00
30,949.35
15.47
0.85
Jerry Apple Farms
41301
4/13/2012
5,056.00
45,554,56
22.78
1.25
Chandler Worley
NIA
4/16/2012
5,340.00
48,113,40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hope Farms
n/a
4/16/2012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
4/16/2012
5,390.00
48,563.90
24,28
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/16/2012
5,400.00
48,654.00
24.33
1,33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/16/2012
5,392.00
48,581.92
24,29
1.33
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/16/2012
5,385.00
48,518,85
24.26
1.33
Jer Ap2le Farms
NIA
4/17/2012
5,362.00
48,311,62
24,16
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/17/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1,33
Carson Mears
NIA
4/17/2012
5,324.00
47,969.24
23.98
1.31
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/17/2012
5,400.00
48,654,00
24.33
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/17/2012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Lovett Farms
NIA
4117/2012
5,416.00
48,798.16
24.40
1.34
Chandler Worley
NIA
4/17/2012
5,412.00
48,762.12
24.38
1.34
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/18/2012
5,391.00
48.572.91
24.29
1.33
Carson Mears
NIA
4/18/2012
5,396.00
48,617.96
24.31
1.33
Johnny Hope Farms
N/A
4/18/2012
5,385.00
48,518.85
24.26
1.33
Johnny Hope Farms
41801
4/1812012
5,056,00
45,554.56
22.78
1,25
Johnny Hoe Farms
41802
4/18/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1,25
Lovett Farms
41803
4/18/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Chandler Worley
31902
4/19/2012
5,254.00
47.338.54
23.67
1.30
Johnny Hoe Farms
41902
4/19/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Johnny Hope Farms
41901
4/19/2012
5,154.00
46,437.54
23.22
1.27
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
4/19/2012
5,416.00
48,798.16
24.40
1.34
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/19/2012
5,409.00
48,735.09
24.37
1.34
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/19/2012
5,387.00
48,536,87
24.27
1.33
Lovett Farms
NIA
4/19/2012
5,422.00
48,852.22
24.43
1.34
Jerry Apple Farms
31903
4/19/2012
5,056.00
45,554.56
22.78
1.25
Ward Farms
NIA
4/20/2012
5,392.00
48,581.92
24.29
1.33
Chandler Worley
NIA
4/24/2012
5,325.00
47,978.25
23.99
1.31
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/24/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/25/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
4/25/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4I2512012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/26/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1,32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/26/2012
5.390.00
48,563.901
24.28
1 1.33
Johnny Ho a Farms
NIA
4/26/2012
5,320.00
47,933.201
23.97
1.31
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/26/2012
5,340.00
48,113.401
24.06
1.32
` Confidential 1/23/2013 Page 9

Buyer
BOL #
Date
Gallons
Total Pounds
Total
Tonnage
Tons of
Nitrogen
Jerry Apple Farms
NIA
4/26/2012
5.342.00
48,131.42
24.07
1.32
Chandler Worley____NIA
4/26/2012
5,340.00
48,113.40
24.06
1.32
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
4/26/2012
5,330.00
48,023.30
24.01
1.32
ABM Farms
N/A
4/27/2012
5,330.00
48,023.30
24.01
1.32
Johnny Hope Farms
N/A
4727/2012
5,320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
4/30/2012
5,320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
5/1/2012
5,384.00
48,509,84
24.25
1.33
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
5/112012
5,401.00
48,663.01
24.33
1.33
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
5/1 /2012
5,410.00
48,744.10
24.37
1.34
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
5/2/2012
5,362.00
48,311.62
24.16
1.32
Johnny Hope Farms
NIA
5/2/2012
5,336.00
48,077.36
24.04
1.32
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
5/2/2012
5,378.00
48,455.78
24.23
1.33
Johnny Hoe Farms
NIA
5/2/2012
5,380.00
48,473.80
24.24
1.33
Andy Claee Farms
NIA
5/3/2012
5.320.00
47,933.20
23.97
1.31
1,936,748.79
17,447,060.52
8,723.86
477.65
Confidential 112312013 Page 10

.4'.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
SECTION �4 49-
NAME J y 5�yr tpi:u_' C.k,
,30-43:oD
DATE/TIME 02!
REPRESENTING
Guidelines for Access: The staff of the_Wilmington Regional Office is dedicated to making public records in
our custody readily available to the public for review and copying. We also have the responsibility to the public
to'safeguard these records and to carry out our day-to-day program obligations. Please read carefully the
followinq guidelines before signing the form:
1. Due to the large public demand for file access, we request that you call at least a day in
advance to schedule an appointment for file review so you can be accommodated.
Appointments are scheduled between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Viewing time ends at
4:45 p.m. Anyone arriving without an appointment may view the files to the extent that time
and staff supervision are available.
2. You must specify files you want to review by facility name or incident number, as appropriate.
The number of files that you may review at one appointment will be limited to five.
3. You may make copies of a file when the copier is not in use by the staff and if time permits.
Cost per copy is 2.5 cents for ALL copies if you make more than 25 copies - there is no charge
for 25 or less copies; payment may be made by check, money order, or cash at the reception
desk. You can also be invoiced.
4. FILES MUST BE KEPT IN THE ORDER YOU FOUND THEM. Files may not be taken from
the office. No briefcases, large totes, etc. are permitted in the file review area. To
remove, alter, deface, mutilate, or destroy material in one of these files is a misdemeanor for
which you can be fined up to $500.00.
5. In accordance with General Statute 25-3-512, a $25.00 processing fee will be charged and
collected for checks on which payment has been refused.
6. The customer must present a photo ID, sign -in, and receive a visitor sticker prior to reviewing files.
FACILITY NAM
2.
3.
4_
5.
Signature and Name of Firm/Business Date
COUNTY

PIIDY SMITHWICK, P.G.
- �sni�,- Geolc,gis�
" C- 910-33h-1798
r,riii'thuir�cia}�'�sli�r,i'ted.corn
ECS CAROLINAS, LLF
Gootechnical • Construction sYMate.ials • En•ii-ormental Facilities
7311 Ogdan 8usmess Park, Susie 201, Wilmington. INC 2R411
T- 910-686-9114 - F _ 910-686-9666
www ecs�imi,ed.corn
pl:k, 611 �,
OJ�IC-Q- J(511-

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
INVOICE
BILL TO: ESC Carolinas, LLP
ADDRESS: 7211 Ogden Business Park, Suite 201
Wilmington, NC 28411
DESCRIPTI
hvkc.w
•
,&4q
NCDENii
NCR'r[-r CAROUNA DEPARTMENT of
ENVrRONMENT AND NATURAL REsou RCES
DATE OF INVOICE: 2-14-2012
INVOICE NUMBER: DWQ #2
Invoice for copies made of file Wright Chemical by Rudy
Smithwick, PG
Posta
TOTAL
Please attach one copy of this invoice to your check,
made payable to NCDENR, and mail to:
Beverly Rivenbark
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
NC DENR - Division of Administration
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington NC 28405-3845
AMOUNT
3.15
45
$3.60
127 Cardinal drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

1:013M
NmIt11;nrollim
bnpnrUnnrll nr r-nvlraruonnl nod FImmm ItaBourenn
DIVISION Or WATEI'l QUALITY-GROWIDWATCr( 31:C
1L'I=I:RVC 1,3CUMBLIX
f:nlolly__� �}1`-L���--Wn[nr , rluullrin Lnli Nunlljor.C-/-1-
C11111d 1-10 ;iorlill No, I_I ;nil LI MIM101]naY ( Onlo Itocolvot __'Tfnrn:
I2oartl lly: !�F(oI, ll0, otrr to IImod 1)11I.,
�Cilnln ur L:uslurly 011lor;
I topoWru: AHO, F:IJO, Mlio, Ill{0, Wn1(0, ,) _------------------_---- ---- —___—_..._—._ Doll] 131111y ljy:— —_ _ (;k:__
W51(0, 10181.11 1:0, 1=ntl. Tf1Is1, Conllnl off,, 011ief:-- � Dula Finpn(iad:___
!;llli,lxltl by: 1311 otr► nr,'hlrinrl
Cnllnrlur(sj; , �^ l)nln--17(lln ix�5 f�nsnlll(, Cnln[11nI1 CUli pills+ico , .11;li, Ponlluldn !;lady, r ndaonl 'I (wil, [7llrnr:
(_If=LU n nL S!_Q Ownar Rkelsnn+l
141 op ;lpoc. Contl.94 nt 25"C LOCnl1011 ur-
TNmp.tn "C Odor Ousrrlpfloll Of onr11p111lu pulnt�
Apponrnrtr.nmillpl1np Malhod Snnlpltl Inlorval
rrNNTii Gia+T >'r�T--� --
Flulri Annlysls UY�Ilmnnrka
LMORATOR Y ANALYS r5 filim 6,y Uun, Alf Loup , eln j
GOD 111U01,140
C UU 1, n%v 9,) i rnpn.
t;nllrrtlrnlAlrF:Rctllalnln 1fUNm!
Crtllfnnn1MPlnlrrl11504 r 11Nhnd
—
110111riruy TO 1111)
Nn1111+re, nus(,nn,ln,! 5:10 u1pA.
J-
1,114117 null+
Alknllnrly In rd 1 4,6 4111 nQ'-47
AIkeilnrly In pll n,a 4In —�-- n,prl
Cililmr,nle 410 mum.
.r
.IHe:nlbnnnrtl 4411 T HrUA�
-
Cnrhnn tNnalde 4(I!i �W
-
I:Idnddn Non mpn.
^-
-
r:ruun,hnn; lln� 10.11 ,rp1L
Cillm: T(nn nrl CU
-~
Cyunrdn T7N - - -- - -- • rupll.
1.+111 (A)IO1111111(9
0111. nolldt TI1J(111 n1prL
Flumldn NCI � 1nU11.
r�
11nrdueset lnlnl 90I1 rnpn.
�—
Ilnrdrrnrl1 lrmn•cnrhl np2 mull.
I'lreonle MOO uUA
nl,ecllrn Cnnd. Nq ul,IhaRlrn,
nullnln 04n n,pn
T
Aulnde r4n
Oil pnd (.If nqe
-
17,1 rIIlia Mull.
'rl(1q a II p75 111U1j
NUr 1 Plot At 11 Vil 11]U1L
i nlel a r' 0(19 • rnp11.
rinreln (NUFee Nl nn7a n,pn.
1114r11n Iflr7r at N) n 19 n,prt.
_____
�tfnnpchludnrrl'nsticldns ��_____,. ,
U1 enn Iles ,1+uu+t+ ('asllcldes _ _ __. •, _
f•llhantluPoillcldes `_.,.
__.._
Add lie+lrlcIdni
rren g --
3ar+,lvoln+lln Urpnnlcs �, -,_
i r'I I•Ulatnr rinnl)n ___ ..
T
Voloille 0 Umilce IVOA hollle w _
T PI W11enllrle llenlle -
Ti'11.I11 EX Unsullne {inlgltl
1.6"QC.. � )dLY
TUP111ru1u1ulN (In tiolvol:--
r 14'%•!� I IRfiV. 7j11.1 � fur 1]Ifsnfvad M,nlysl�tulnldl llllnled enulpin nnrl w(fln'ltl9' In hfrn;k, ""�"�`�'�""'•---•--------------_._._`.-_-.._.�.....,
I

ENR/DWQ LABORATORY 16) LAB NO, 5G0703
SEMIVOLATILE ANALYTICAL REPORT
REPORTED BY
CHECKED BY
REVIEWED BY
SAMPLE TYPE:
WATER
SUPERVISOR
DATE
ENTERED BY
ANALYTICAL RESULTS DATE
t"A 4*
�'W ...............
f
62-53-3
ANILINE
250,12
U
606-20-2
2,6-OlNiTROTOLUENE
250
u
108-95-2
PHENOL
250
U
99-09-2
3-NITROANILINE 1250
J2
u
111-44-4
BI5(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
250
u
83-32-9
ACENAPHTHENE
250
u
95-57-8
2-CHLOROPHENOL
250
u
51.28-5
2.4-DINITRO PHENOL
1250
u
541-73-1
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
250
U
100-02-7
4-NITRO PHENOL
1250
u
110646-7
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
250
u
132-64-9
DIBENZOFURAN
250
u
100.51-B
BENZYL ALCOHOL
500 J2
U
121-14-2
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
250
u
95-50.1
11,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
250
U
84-66-2
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
250
u
95-48.7
2-METHYL PHENOL
250
U
7005-72-3
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHE
250
u
108-60-1
SIS(2-CHLOR0I5CPROPYL) ETHER
250
U
86-73-7
FLUORENE
250
u
106-44-5
4-METHYL PHENOL
25L
D4
100-01-6
4-NITROANILINE
1250
u
621-64.7
N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE
250
u
534-52-1
4,6-DINITRO-2-METHYL PHENOL
1250
u
67-72-1
HEXACHLOROETHANE
250
u
136-30-6
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
250
u
98-95-3
NITROBENZENE
250
u
101-55-3
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHEF
250
u
70-69-1
ISOPHORONE
250
u
116-74-1
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
250
u
BB-75-5
2-NITRO PHENOL
250
u
87-86-5
PENTACHLORGI PHENOL
1250
u
105-67-9
2,4-DIMETHYL PHENOL
250
u
85-01-8
PHENANTHRENE
250
Li
65-85-0
BENZOIC ACID
1250
U
120.12-7
ANTHRACENE
250
u
111-91-1
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
250
U
84-74.2
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
250
u
120-83-2
2,4-DICHLORO PHENOL
250
U
206-44-0
FLUORANTHENE
250
u
120-82-1
1,2.4-TRIC14LOROBENZENE
250
U
12MM
PYRENE
250
u
91-20.3
NAPHTHALENE
250
U
85-68.7
BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE
250
U
106-47-8
4-CHLOROANILINE
500 J2
U
91-94-1
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
500 J2
u
87-68-3
HEXACHLOROBU7ADIENE
250
U
56-55-3
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
250
u
59-50-7
4-CHLORO-3-METHYL PHENOL
Soo
U
218-011-9
CHRYSENE
250
U
91-57-6
2-METHYL NAPHTHALENE
250
u
117-81-7
915(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
250
u
7747-4
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
250J2
u
117-84-0
01-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
250
u
88-06-2
2,4,()-TRICHLORO PHENOL
250
u
205-99-2
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
250
u
95-95-4
2,4,5-TRICHLORO PHENOL
250
U
207-08-9
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
250
u
91-58-7
2-CHLORO NAPHTHALENE
250
U
50-32-8
BENZO(A)PYRENE
250
u
88-74-4
2-NITROANILINE
1250
U
193-39-5
tNDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
250
u
131-11-3
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
250
U
53-70-3
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
250
U
208-96.0
ACENAPHTHYLENE
250
u
191-24-2
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
250
u

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS REPORT - DWQ LAS PAGE 2
Maihyl Butanaic Acid C5.1-110.02 _ ^�
Pentanolc Acid C5.1-110.02T
Unidentified
Mathyt Ester Haxanolc Acid C7.H14,02
HexanofcAcid C6.1-112.02
Hexanalc Acid C6.1-112.02
Haxanolc Acid C6.1-112.02
HaxanoicAcid C6.1-112.02
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unldentlfled
Octenoic Acid C8.1-110.02
Unldentlfled
Unldentlfled
Unidentified
Unidentified
Decanolc Acid C10.H2O,02
biphenyl C12.1-110 _
Dlphsnyl Ether C12.1-110.0
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidenlifed
Unldentlfled
COMMENTS:
LAB NO. 5G0703
410 N1
1700 N1
280 J
820 N1
PQL- Practical Quantltation Limit- Subject to
980 N1
change due 10 Instrument sensitivity
400 N1
2800 N1
U- Samples analyzed for this compound but not detected
690 N1
8 J
J- Estimated value
5J
10 J
J2- The reported value failed to meet the established
31 J
quality control criteria for either precision or accuracy.
Is
2200 N1
N1- The component has been tentatively Identifled based
28 J
on mass spectral library search and has an
87 J
estimated value.
17J
8 J
N3- Estimated concentration less than the laboratory PQL limit
120 N1
and greater than the laboratory method detection limit.
980 N1
3800 N11
A- Value reported is the average of two or more determinations.
110.1
8.1
P- Elevated PQL due to matrix Interfernece andlor sample dilution.
37 J
61
191
8J
4S J
11J

tt � � 1 ' � t F �`.,�'� i � ?� �~yar SI , ;fir �. .�>iw.. _ --�•
�! r 1 ti,}"+v:T�.�ty.I.'�_ itr ; 'Y•il L:. �V��. ..�'-- � -� •�-r
�" w,'1, {, �k..� _,; :_. 9•-'t •R.�rt+ .�',r•� �"���}i ^� � .ram r � w �
is �,�' �/• p,.^ �1, l i S S ^'t'' µ .`'�''• � i :1
••••{1 {Ie Y• ' M �'•',' lF f
1
• p jj �
i r, ..I J• "•'.^"` ..x• r � X , , =4 � _ � ` r ��. s � • ..r��..�1-.�'^ � t r (:'�.r i�.
k � _ {•. 1.v,, rf r ^. „l+ ` 'iy-r, rii' I Y ";' -. E � '� ,7•.,:. .4..IY.--II �•s-f.. -fi.�., }.
' i , . F �� �,* C. � �" a el �� k Y, ik] 4' • � jj . •• -�� � � 'F4� ' _ - \. �. ,��i7 I Y r
Iry
,( '41i^ r y fir,, .•�. _ 11 •�* :j, Ir r.`..•.i-¢•.Y-�- �.• = r[]�.--. �r t � � �,t +! ,_ 3 T 1' 1, F�f `� F
* .�SiS..4 ,3 ,,� [} p, ii• $ '' '� } T .' 1-ajar ,i All
ff
.' ra � � ♦ I^'j �.' "M y � � �" -,-i• � fl'i. � TS r. � lr+fir -
LJ
I
1 r.i I �F ��. 1{4� •r• fn f .! ,f:r +r � d i,✓f; °wr � �;� :t = � � � �
Y� 1. .�111, �.M 1� � •� �µ' 1 � �'�•r..�_ � �' k_ �.,�1 ..r. =� � �� .•�1 �i
-� x'`. � •t ' " �' r•frti h'� .} y� - t_�z -� r� max__ xi• ! i
- '.+ i !• 9 _ .ram � _: !
-3� r 4{p{ •i � '�:� �A fr r� 1 � �_, �� � 1+ 4 E I ! Ir .Jr; r. wt , r 7
yr L M.. •r' f � ' 1 IV.
1 r� iti �Yt1' j r
Ilt.r�,r� Y, �•ff .3-r•
�' 1 } �, ♦ + ''�•'�� 1 y,. :�T��R -} _ r� 11�.�[�' L n �� Y.. .'1 i IfI� , F
R'4- . �. •i � j�jl F\[i 7 �� _���1\���. .� , �i:: .JC.`.•ik.•".,A "-;w��:'M �» .r'^'
l.r`r�, ',�n�w:...jilj •I*'! �i••4 ��-r{ f� "i 11 ��}�, :..4 �e4i �• 1 }tr I1»`�r k � r� .
. f.� � ,�,,„ wt '� I^jl...•� � � -�lif ,�Y+ �Y � �� i � �'� 1' -r� �f I ��'• � ��� ��
w11 t �'�-;�-,y,,•�i y, � � t "� f �� 't� r � -! '•• •r. � ! i walk Y �• � .+ r r l•' c^ .f .� J`_
`� ` .y • �S t ` ' .fi ei ,• /+i', I l ,! y i _ t pF rp kS+ +! ' J - es ,�..
��+"'21 '� 1;� "�.�f','^' 'Y;.. ., '��ti ,{ a �S �tRri�i't � ^1{ � � •�I ,r.ltt�� ���c�1![I �.. �,�7����.i �•� �'r� 1
its i� k �� � :v'.) ys f "-`f rr5 1Vf` SFN I' � �Y+4 3. 'ry ♦+I��.r+ i + _ ~ +�3�j�� '�//.}5• �'� •�� —•+

LIVINGSTON
--���
f fir,; ..�� :r�-�' - ,..... • • ,.• �- �', �-�•- • � �OIUIE '
r r �.''�, "-."``�`"`,` ".• • 60 0 60 120
R X X 4.4
`•�D..¢ :.' O� Mill Creek Flood lairs L 1 INCH - 60
p ,
} a :: :: t• ;�'. CEO �Q . ,S �}, ALZ, • . ... _ � •. '
EVAPORATI x �► O- i A P P R ' P MATE B O U N DAR-�G:�•'-..�.-.-,,. .� .. .
L . ,
.X 6.2 ?.2 r 1 .4.j .• W.�. #; . OF S R, L�C'S1TE'.
21.3
LAGOON
LINED POND) `► �, 'ti r
lop
X 50 ,` V.fa �„��w�! • �./ r. _ // ♦ 4 1. ^• ! �. h :••• •��••`G��..:.: ."•:'�r,;,4,:.i.•.-.%:'�+.� . Y ,
.� CD
,. - }i� �':`�• _ %��' +"- , . .,....--.......^"'_""�� r Fes•' '- R + '
3.7
- ,,' -• •47X400 SQ F'I' ,30 S FT
a� Q
15' r : .. .,la 4 �i'�. ¢ L IQUI i .ti`�/� �� r - `-.�. _.,, • -
;• METH.;STClRAGE INITROGE
KS
f 24.5 � � •- �-
10,
rWE., , :� �- ;BRIDGE !SEfifTATIVE +
w r SA.I f PO NT X 23.
E SILAR LLC , •L-
'DI BLD /�� �� ►. i f G�7[r IITTrIPUA T T -1
,700 SQr �
20
`"`.••-.., .. '`'�j *�/V� � % •. Syr..•- •. ••""'�-�:-' •
O � "•fir .• .. • i[AJ7�.W 'r .. «. _ �V � ., •,r . "•' � T " •r .1 - .. - i C � - '• �' �' -
• f -
. O
, O f U01.
AmI
ALL' ._ X ,
SW 24,7
.r/ VV • J• t �t 32.1,/ ... - Y }r •` '+• '�-�..' ' .. •' `-'y, •- ;
4 -;` , ;
i ' r 1 4 f t I -,.•.. r - r f' 23. %.' • • •Y ._r. - / ,� - - -
34.2 77,400• Q FTr� ,�,f r :, :.. _. �• . ... _ `'" ' . �`� f ` ^ ,
ILI—
OBC
§1&54,N K�WHSE PACKAGIN #REA ,-� r.- . ` • _ s X
w. ,'p ; 3 . WAREHOU �< �f �`�• ,_;, filar -�
EXAMI ,•,,, " .' --:
AREHOUSE f-DUCK "POND �' ' it - rn IS2.5
,
_ 34 3 X i f' p s ti ak //��{q �- .� - ,X'.
--- ;• �� y 32.4 r f S !r✓ �� ,� ► ti V " l7 i�i `,�
~'`• �` `'' - . -EXAMINE' 44.2
SPECIAL.
\0 140t? 42.5
ofill
�- ��• -.,� `� WAREH]US• '� PROJECTS �.
�` Q RODUCT
' . -,.., �•.,_ EXAMINE � • � , :
PRODUCTION
«Y WHSE-i2yL.VoQ l' ��y� • fl r r
" ,,;�,, ,-► u�`�� HEXAMINEAL
37.5-�. ODUCTTON
0 63,0000 SQ FT SU'TFALL
O �' SEPTIC DRAIN
o RE FIELD r.
o,-'0 MAINT E 4 :
X 39.2
. `-� ••,_ 5 7/3[4 i INCORPA7ED MOMENTIYIEr FORMAT
.. • -�� • - �. GEC
8.1
r', �i�t'�• ,, •. 4 3/3Q 09 ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE TO AREAS
X _^ , '`~ .•- �'•'_ �- ,-, 3'2' , := AIN ■ FICE r' 3 Gc t1PVA b Pat APRIL HANSONS MARK UP
35.5 '�'` �� 2 10/(2z/0e I-aunED D wtr�c NUMBER
,,.' ��_ '�. _ i , 4%9 07 2--UPitTED TO 08RI1pV & c�E DRAWING
f �•� ¢Q 5 1 M UPDATED do ADDED STORM DRAINS
41- i e X ,,,
.ROVE[ I
� :��'' ``:� `` �.' ,J REV. DRAWN BY DESCRIP'TiON K B�
• 36.5 ICY
' '- to �,:;;,• • F`�.� - �' - �� � 40.4
°`
FIGURE Z MOMENTI%AEACME,N.C.
Silar
33 Neils Eddy Road Specialty Chemicals
.- X 36.7 y
'�►•`` _ •� Riegelwood, Columbus County, North
TQRM WATER SAP
LLP�Carolina 1ZTn0U DRAIN 0"QF'
39.5
'i 11+II�aIB ECS r RCJECT NQ. 22-17258 N r Figure 2
31.7 _ X �.y� _ '_ -- WATER OUTF`ALL
STORM

HEXION
SW OUTFALL
003 ■
q
I It
V OUTFALL
005
.14EXION
SWOUTFALL
008
SEPTIC DRAIN
FIELD
m

r_ �i t+.•,4.�5� : .,,fit. w -. t{. 1 1�_. .l.- , t.r'h.=;it1.t-S. r i
ll
_ 1 � • p' `�-'•- .F r.'r �-7+-�j a-� .r- �:-•�-r-jt -s �r4r '!' �a.�- 'G ,. '*�.
7 r s y l
(] .n}; F•* �T ! ArN. •rl x � ��,,Af+k i3. a.h "" )�•C:^ ; �c� t+r -�1
' ��'�� � '"� T}•� `f ♦ ;' ti�•?, If Y ��; �:.#`� Cj'� Y•p ih y ,t rr � �� i i } ��.. 'i , �!
Yi .t. .jx--.j..r x! r,.�•"� dl�.�f.. •'73. .4.T A.. - 1� �.� �.. �:��'L --..�Y}/ +}+�{ _�i".'� f•
�r; �... } I!+t• r�.�..�}~� .1.���tt •{( T�� r� r �i�f;�4 f' ` I �.� ,!p � • Aa �
��''�7 4r �. F� a ''� � r , •.� .'� +:- � ti-r-•» _ rr;�}., � i �{' T- 7
?T� I, I, `,. [.-� �9.+'';�'f4 •C •.-� .t'�I r�`.��f tr- r
k l NJ7 a f:/ff w � ,ir r • �L. f,� � j
�i.:: •�".- r'� -r �..� � -'-r „cc+'r'� �T x � � F • a �_..�_..,:i.�.w.�..��,� A • t I ��••�' •� -
,r
a ��A• ,��in `1t 1+ ' .. .`r� fta��r,. '.� k� �+ ;i��f � i
ttt,, �I 4 !_ q w 'gyp+',•�� • f ""'' �,_ti;,rti'� ty�•' < a; 't � , - �
4Fr � r�i•�+�7• ,.p'+ � � � � _ [� ,.d � .j ' �... ; L j 7' � 1, _,�", ��' �_
�tEL+ nt �r�•.�Pt 'r � _� �k.. r{ � ,� Yi ��"�;l�rR1_"^f�1 -�a����• �{ni _� f9.
L^ 4 �'tk _ � I, � k •, �'� 'N r4[d , J? � � ��' �• 1. v t � 4 r.
4J- 2.
", i! r '��� .` �r' ,�.�y IG*4��. ss "' y 'f�I - •�,� a �1v I � �>� .� �'+� .�� � �5
Ar
ja
i .. dt.. a..�..... �,r ..,� 1Fw1�;'-�7 ? � 1 *A• ' S f � - ' ,�, � •*'7' �s...i � ! k ;f'!
+.: e _ �, r"+ � i y f��+h lr. Oi ►r- f• • ! "r ..�- .•..., n .�.i

!TAFT el c
' I � � , � d-4, ���' . ..F i,..-.y -aw F.r"3 3+.9. .�'+�� f-•� � ill-.?..s�� � j
P.
E .fir f —' S �• r P �`''�J ` � ., r k} � 'N ° k, Ft ` jH+1�
,y ,:. j }i�. .�, � �•+� .ia` �^.,J € i r4� �ti i t- ,,fit . �.� �*.ti
;" r ��� ��-/fj'k � �� � P '3L ; �{ "$ �T' err RAJ! �. '.h !• Fla 3t � �tr ''hk �.0., p,!�'
• Jr I �"T" ��-�' _. � \. 5 � r• � iR �.�•�'F ry �•�3 M}� P� � i��L' ; � • I
J � �•, PP .� ♦ tr l �F)� � �.:r, � � t t r � r 1 .aye iii �J � �,.{,• � � •V•��' � � 1( 'r' �� � jj
rt� -"I _P y.i� .. �� ip.
��.. '�4 4 s -�',i. ,�f•: ° A: !"°t4.t i d '�Fe 4 a'k`ip -'_ ° j"- ; r,
l° 1�•� � + ;'. � r n�, ir, r,�1 'F 7 r� � 'M ,F.s ��-.f� S'wMf �R. f r!
E ' Fri' `' ; ►° gill,
14.
.p:..� ­- -s.r
/�.l°+�
.f it �Y [ `",� � l� �i�G`°`�f +�• a f' ° t �-� j '4
t �t
kjC

� � T R r r^ i ff'.n ••� � � U --�.V - � •r-� - �.r..r t + o ii ,
a wv is ., tZ. - s$+ti . v s. � r ..t • w 1 � -�! t
�Irl ! i . �:,` ,.q.. J,t�.` ,.7�' � �_}•' i 1��t, °'a � 7.+x ' 7w ,I � � 1r� .,
.`�` .•�,/"` C�..c�. � .�r*�>« ; ,Y•�,7�— .ate_ �� _ t;� _ t+.� :. — ��*• � :r� s. • � � : . _ � ��
t •-sri ^a' +- f'ht..,y„_ �.t;. ,.y, v" k`� F� �"/' r �lf�Ml -�.. _ _ • Y i 4
�.t � � �y }'kt �� � ..� �' y- r llr�, S ' �✓ +err � `� +i. � � �_+ ♦ �.1 ��'
yn _?I �' fg' . e�,:'w, y yi ^s' � �i ,� �•s•`3.'_' � �• r ��t.. ` j��. •!`-.�t�.r.t,,, .st.ir�:L �` r
jj" �•:. i•' t t ",r 11.� 4t I "y li - roil; � *r' x4 j t 'F' A' Y, '.i` Ik =" tt 1'f � ' •t{ * v- . • .l..T .ti..
fj ♦ {t 11 . t C `� � ff}. t �r "•� 1 „ ` }'"c � . � � ' .." f 1 jrtj- _ -r ,..
4 :!` M �f ! 'r; 1 a r-'.t.. "�:; .iLr.f'^,t.-- *hr. '•-k* Q1 s +h '� 1 ��. _� �''� ,��[ A -r I k �.
f.%.•=. ro,:.awr►T 5' Jiti Th', ; S. ' 4- .. i `�
��Iiys' sl r-yZ C: �. •� `i. .. -{- i 0~! ��}`j�'?' � � Iw� �� �,1 r i 7eEf,�
41 I !� ' ..••....,.y .L. v,.y y .�w,.w.....�. x _ .f . F. �, '+'� • �' i M ' a 1 $'. I { Lr� � J•. t... 1
t •�'� sipt
�c.,�, ' r,!�'• r �� r •'i •- ' ']:�+1.� P � i rr.. a ?�:.';1�, ` .r x
`-K �- ' ♦ � .,..�--�-•.-.,,--. � .`'..1"�L a4- �!" Tf.1 -mil. � r i. �y .I<�y.
I �.� 1 •��� i� I r�7I� r ,l`!� �1 •� 1. ( ;„' ; 1 ��j�•f• � • F
� ��1 ti `"� 7 .7 i�� 44j�� � � • 1 �T R' f ..21 11. � i�r ...� ,
1 1 1
4 )) � ~ 1• ,k - 1 ..1 �}111 Tk '17-
iv
�4• 7 �,,�!� �:iJ. '1 ""11
'i • il, YYY it G' i L' ' 1� �i ''. �Sf9F'� �: `i ' 'r' J W
40
t t
! i �"" �f-rhhY � f R',.0 i 1 kf. r•'� 'iC.:� + :f L `�� �I � * � i. �, Tj
•� �V � �, ��/ ?'i li r' +.,i'lt. �, •t ��tih�1 'SS�� ..y�l ��
% nli il�r,.,i � c.t , " �� ',- •r•u'a,� ' "�'�'^ � �,'�'. t ^` b w ''� r, :'"`' d"1•,Q .§ i/-� �s ; �,� �r �� x` 3 'i tr
- � �.�. •IYj "•\•.. i 1 x � , +' ✓' j '�1 � �.^k i ,�.. �'s:. i . � 'ilk
^� E r L �3r. }'. ,.,,�.+� �iy - „�,. ,' 11 .. , .. � _ ���s,�,ii� t�� S 1 �. - { I ..y :•i• � _
3 �.� � Ij i �t � ' �� �� ^ _ �! i• f l , l �°� `,/ r � Ilh f� G F � � L 1
�oil.�K:+.. "ar '+•.�_"�r�f5. T 1` .. •. ��'. •- l . i'a�t I.i1 "•. .afw'' - •� � �. �l,I ��riRiS�fl.+- --1�.�

lr4T,
��'� �E•�' �` �'� {�, rRl 1 rY?t 1�" f ! i..' \,. .X,q�, �1 ,r
77
i_� I .�•V ' IS. 'S.T � t��' :...; . b � r �Y';' t r ` � ,• 1 a ��i� � �t •.ai' '�t�/ � ;��, .e..l�
} �._ �j Jos r-.,i!.\..�'*t'.•. \}``.. -. 1 � `tom, �' 1� Y { � I � 1 � kA
i � jj� ,.� � .�'. �k j '" �. '� Q F� •.. � � e k { � '• 3. 7•+� � `j 1� a ,_
. !� 1EyF .ti I "' �'�' ��� • "�'�' � y Y y� -�� .. ,p.-•w CV � \-+'r_"� a `*'^aF i' ���'-"` `n`�'.;"r� - � • _-... _
( � [^ .'� �.*r`i`' R ��' "� 1 4. �,` 1 i (,,'. t, �4 ��j�? 1` t yea' �.�.., • S r
."" � k9\`1 r� `I� +�`/ '�`'� •A _:'%� 3'1 s �Y�. jam' M-�,,4 .� r�� 7i' r
��" ' i e I � I " } �}�[� .�� if .c � '•- a.'•y, tiC .1 � •e,ry � ;. . �.
- l 1 •^
�,r' \ `k' �;�,':l ,��^ i � • .t "� a."� .�`t fig ,
�r 4 ... L-.,.s.� „� -.,.. .� 7 \.. +'-- �-: !'�' �.`' � iY; i+yr�'�•---aw !3� _�µ� +1 e J
I .�. ' �.�� 1,.. r.. .� :.J. �F L"i''I`[r' �'�`� it 3• �• a. 1.1}i• ��1.i•; .11 r'q'; �`��r •'i. :�. SS.1

I 1er
k 4 �
ak
�tJ•rs �}. }�, i i.ti �, � �,I.. 3 �I ; 'SI'y 4w t����
�,9i kc r,', t( � c.• ; _ r.. '!♦.Ye,-,_• ,.y 3� �,.,, 1 -C1 Sa "{a!s ,�Ck . �. � - ..
_ ! A �- � � Sep I 1 � I '��•''^ j .s ~'iw.`�' � • ` h ' �7.
o}.�
77
ej
ijf \.

rg
W,

- .. �.r7 i� � 1. ..'.. _•t,,., � `-"' i.^- "'w�li- 'S'""." i � • �� , �ii I r�i i��
.a.� �� _ 5�1 a Y # � r �� �a �-� �, v •f �' Ili :7a.t.�lY1. o"F �,,,.....
. ..�_ �1 ♦_�.� ��-. yyls+.`..(� __�� t ..r R+• ..i'.S`^I' '-"'I• � _� k�, �. }Y�_ IIj
.. .� '�� --- - ». _ -. ,-I @.—•fir - -- '�: z^ �
44
t.
�.ter
(3j
._ . 4;,
co
di
,7V
t� +.
+ � t � • j 1, e' y

7 • j .ti � � 1 � t
Ir
"il
• ��; "�,.�,. � p�• -r � +e' r rw,-.-, � �'� bT �%I .7 � _r � r ^ r� F� •+.i� �!"7 y"'S "r,.....,'tf
1 �- �,,. ��•, 11.E v,91'�f4�,s�_i ri 1 f I�•'�ly� �a 1��. � a-�„ 4'r'
+' � . t •, � `f "f � _ ' y / !, } "'�-�n �' .�Ir � 74Ii`'i" -` � 1_t �i • i � � '"r � � ! � '"" "' �
k stIT 5
ESP
y ! �..•R�..'
it
it
�' 4�• �Ir�F; ��.,� ..'�. ,1 `�• - , f ,I«Ifs -�

IT
r !Jf •� . C.�u^ '�, j . atr �r . r•* _ �"�);, 4w C _ 4 [!1 .F - �; Ill ,. �' y p"�- «•�
1 �� � 4 `'} f l �; � ^� • � .'i','.- Y � 1 }--' � L .:�, } � +.'- "„ {. a 111 � 111 � r.��.
F'(�.�. , - r � .1�. . � f.r '�• .Il.., +. ..f } + °�- "v may, ��l .. . * _ . _
{,� .�} � , `��•. �� �y ,�. �• ]'' 1, .� �� �("�a .�.� f'=] tea,.
' � .i•� V � � _ �/�'4i s �r � y '.k. tirk P•.i � „k � •� �l � ...� y
I
IF �- r -,'t ' :��-.-..}�.M.•J,:�•.r.-.. w----•-- ..s. +.-t.__ •_ k�4 p,,,w a �. ,.y4 Y.e.-;ter t# ez ��.. -�!" � � 1 3 }
KO
�. I �„,f„a. � �[.�.•.. - �....-•..i-r.•a.. _ ] - xa. ..r .4.- V +ra:..w } j ffi.
'"+'� •�r •� i� t s , � �.�' •r ' [ � (Y "� t �^^, 'Ft�,-. a. � .Ti'`� i �i+y� i
,� (r y{r✓' s.�F. �}� �� ] �'' �✓" •C�,. 4i'! s 1 � �� � .yt yF1>l 1 � it ' � ii
4'
1' ,'•CFI?- i r , ;C 4.,r� . ors»
w � l
:�•, a 4� +- r v, y> F r: r J.s� •i�r:-.It

TT ONAT
414
t:
Ilk
ow ,
1111}}}} �- _'�� ii.. `, � "!{{�{ �� 4 ' •. �'.ar�,, '� ,V- E ryr�:,�.rAr�• �a�
f !i I.'} • - ��y! r •tom L d' '-�+'' •f! w� 'R�' �� � �"r Z �' � `�. ��
� f 11 � f. •'� r � '�i =r�'E... `+°'' *` ,j .� r '�1:� ,;� ;•,.` ti } 4�
t {j _� . I ,.,..,f .t ` '�'.�_ I.k'#"°k.��, r �}•(.. y - "t"i'- �/ , 1 �^. �-•d �'�`•- �,-=_�.'Ls;. =xr �
'f1)�
}, � i �}• r•. � � q�'y:R � i (�� Z t P 1� i f .f �.' r ��oj'� � 1��` s''iY .
�i i t t �' '} t ; ��.! Z� �� A Ar •►, �'t l r,: r �..r 1 r s t'.
:
y fir, , ,•'; . I r Pl`
r t t`i� i , �'MFi a• r r. SF # t ,rr "! fil4r _r,[
14, L• � " _ � F "� 1 •• � {{ ��}.T,,
� 44jj iTT''�� � .- -�, :..;.... ,� } � } � 1. � �: { H � ,.�,�. i_ r � �•�'� �
fi 1(t 1Y - • i y - •t ni
q r i e ti rY-
t•'t..�' � t�. 1 O, "'' rn r'�7 �, a Z ' ,i j� •�
��- t.l 4 � t r .1'if,1 t. .S_ . �w"' �• l�.?`� .1Y �' � .� >Y' 'AM�'lr r� �r_„�wr.•'�

fk.t .._.. .�-�: r ...k ."�• q^r^� ,.Y. 3�-_:
.l.� r4Y 'r"•� � '►�\ t, •a y�.M t' >' !1 "T' F �� }^"' I � l- r.
wil
i IN
'ti't �T '�`-r.i I as c r. }y���..-�'�j' r + __ � i'� ♦ej�'+` ��:
'. }*•r•.1 `+'_ �S I. pl � ' � y t"sr�''4�'x•`1 N'. `;I� [ r �1 i f��� it _ ,f
3�; ^'.N. __ a'� �«�}r. t4 j-•. 11. ",t �F"" 111 _ Y-' y� ' `aF r�'-
•�...�: .-tv ,,,,� a+r ..IGt �YS ��' .t.-.. 'r� 4•:'4 1 �"�'�'!iif' �`r.�S,� � �Sr.'.. r.:r .�..-Y.,
..�� •!C 4:1�'... �. #� •iH�4��, .y(. ��., �� �Fpr �' �y�,;, +� (¢ 'tir a.�..'r'i > 'f� ! I�� i
� r�, ,� •r`�, [ +'i" +�-� h'�`� • "cr'' ' ��, 1' I' �. [ `t `-l� �:�{!f �.,.ly r_� J. _yr,.� .� .r�"r�_I. .�.
I4,�...��1�'F' � r r �i�-1 } •S -�� x�,�'; }�ia ;'1� r" �,1��••'. !`# �t, �„ "1'l�_ ��C�,� <l. P`.� ..c�,s,.�;
t' �� e''j7 '�'t� T,,.r` � -.p ,�f� f f ti�'� �• r. . / r 4 n .
� r,Y� ir'a6 ah�� 1`��y ', r2A 4ir .�a' �f "w. t . 1 1 �' �• r r 1
�• [ r � ;. L�' � `� icZ a• {iiii••-i r.� 1 .i • - •1-�._ hh....,t Y. ..+j•,...
"'"J~ � ,w'7 i`T" �Z'3' f • .. ��y„ ,i, % * �,..� �r IY t_ 1 �:='is"Yr�^•--
•/. 1 ##f frti. \ �r 'i4 L �74i• ' )I',}•�ikJ� �' 'q E•-
.wi SwS ' , T •:� R 2' ` 'ryr .�. � ' 1 � .'.7'. 1�i. � �� _# � �� • R p'�, /� r / � i .1 �.y,yw �-
E f
. �.. � „ � • f � r 1, � �, �e',�, � • e y�C�:,'r'a +jjt " R �� f(�.� - H �i,.
�+ • � �4 �:� 1 � rf� [ ; �t �. w > 1#•' + .."•p . }fir, ^� r, ��r � �.rd f[� a...� w1i,i -}: \a � .r
t[1 ' a ` ,1 1• '• i �,, 1' �! i fffk! -,' I, J/1 '�''.e� .'' rr .t7-,1S1 t{/ I ,.t?
Iy�: S K I, . :..,,�. ;.. .. .y, .4 �r �.Ni '+i.., }}{� �s '7 �i.:...tk �d,•`7� f�'Ti � �4 tS - f ��-
I. r t. + t :� a.1ti J]J ..r •a �. � i��j,'j.�Y`� ��' �J #"Y�'r�j-, {��ey [''r� [ �, �;:
#: ; � Ji - � �. � c . .•f t l,� �• �e fj-Y'r .. !1 3: i r!'�iA..ti '�k'�{`-. � '? 1�.,.�?7'��' .. `/• :ar„ �-.

IV--w- ��+�/�-w� awm--m0 1.1
dV w J31VM N2iolS d`d W M31`dM waols ml NOI.LV' dOCMOD ,LH
1