Combined Nurf Alum Residual - cms9files1.revize.com

LAKE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

TRANSPORTATION AND BENEFICIAL REUSE OR DISPOSAL OF ALUM RESIDUAL

October 9, 2020

RFI # 2021-01

Lake County Water Authority

27351 SR 19 Tavares, Florida 32778

(352) 324-6141

i

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 2021-01

TRANSPORTATION AND BENEFICIAL REUSE OR DISPOSAL OF ALUM

RESIDUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………...2

1) PURPOSE………………………………………………………………………....2

2) LCWA BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………..2

3) NUTRIENT REDUCTION FACILITY INFORMATION………………………..3

B. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION INSTRUCTIONS………………………………4

1) GENERAL INFORMATION……………………………………………………...4

2) INTENT TO HOLD DISCOVERY SESSIONS………………………………...5

a. Discovery Session Dates and Contact Information………………….5

b. Discovery Session Purpose…..……………………………………….5

c. Use of Information………………………………………………………5

d. Meeting Logistics and Specifics……………………………………….5

3) RESPONSE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS………………………………..6

a. Submittal Response Date and Location……………………………….6

b. Information Documents………………………………………………….6

c. Information Format………………………………………………………6

C. LCWA QUESTIONNAIRE…………………………………………………………..6

ATTACHMENT A – Pesticide & Herbicide Residual Lab Analyses

ATTACHMENT B – Initial Macro- and Micronutrient Analyses

ATTACHMENT C – University of Florida Horticulture Experiments

ATTACHMENT D – NuRF Site Evaluation Clean Soil Criteria Analyses

ATTACHMENT E – NuRF Alum Residual

2

Request For Information - Transportation And Beneficial Reuse Or Disposal Of Alum Residual

RFI #2021-01

A. INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE The Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) is requesting information, (hereinafter referred to as INFORMATION) from qualified RESPONDERS regarding their ability to transport, and beneficially reuse or dispose of dewatered alum residual produced by the LCWA’s Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF). It is the LCWA’s intent to assure that its alum residual is beneficially reused or disposed of in an environmentally responsible, regulatory compliant manner (Federal, State, County, and City). To this end LCWA seeks information from RESPONDERS regarding beneficial reuse and/or disposal methods for the NuRF’s alum residual including, but not limited to composting, land application, fertilizer production, energy production, landfilling or other uses. The RESPONDER’s alum residual beneficial use methods may be by application to farm lands, composting, or by other approved off-site beneficial use methods. Disposal shall be at an approved sanitary landfill. The RESPONDER must have all permits and approvals necessary for the beneficial reuse or disposal program detailed in the INFORMATION, or provide the plan to meet these requirements in the INFORMATION. The INFORMATION submitted by RESPONDERS shall detail the RESPONDER’s established operations in the beneficial reuse or disposal of dewatered alum residual and should demonstrate how the RESPONDER would perform this service for the LCWA. If “transport” of the alum residual is not a part of RESPONDER’s current business, RESPONDER must provide INFORMATION on transport of the NuRF’s alum residual from the facility site to the proposed handling, processing, or disposal location. LCWA BACKGROUND Established in 1953, by the Florida Legislature, the LCWA was formerly known as the Oklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority. The LCWA’s legislative purposes are:

1) Controlling and conserving the freshwater resources of Lake County. 2) Fostering improvements to streams, lakes and canals in the county. 3) Improving the fish and aquatic wildlife in the county by improving the

streams, lakes, and canals in the county. 4) Protecting the freshwater resources of Lake County through assisting local

governments in the treating of storm water runoff.

3


RFI #2021-01

Through management of its own annual projects or agreements/coordination with local and state agencies, the LCWA protects the county’s freshwater resources by removing pollutants entering the Clermont Chain of Lakes and Harris Chain of Lakes, protecting these waterbodies from untreated runoff and preserving environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to local waterbodies. The LCWA is governed by a seven-member board who are elected by Lake County residents to four-year terms. The LCWA collects fees through a special ad valorem tax based on the assessed value of real estate or personal property to fund its annual personnel and operations budgeted expenses.

Nutrient Reduction Facility The LCWA operates and maintains a water treatment plant known as the Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF) that was designed to treat 32.3 MGD consistently, but for brief periods can treat up to six times that volume. The volume of water varies because treatment is directly related to rainfall events. The facility is unique and the largest of its kind for environmental conservation. Project construction began in October 2007 and the facility became operational on March 2, 2009. Flood discharge from Lake Apopka represents a large, controllable source of pollution entering a portion of the Harris Chain of Lakes in Lake County. The NuRF utilizes off-line liquid alum injection to remove total phosphorus flowing out of Lake Apopka. Improvements to the downstream lakes will depend on the amount of rainfall and discharge from Lake Apopka. Alum was selected because of its reliability and history of successful use in many different water treatment applications. Once alum combines with dissolved and particulate forms of total phosphorus in the water, it forms heavy snowflake-like particles called “floc” which sink to the bottom. To collect the floc, two 6.5-acre settling ponds were constructed. The alum floc is removed from the ponds using a dredge which sends the floc to a centrifuge for dewatering. The dewatered alum residual is then stored on-site in an open-air containment area.

Because of its off-line design, the NuRF retains all of the alum by-products sending only clean water downstream. The process removes at least 67% of the target algae-feeding nutrients and provides for the achievement of lake management goals for Lakes Beauclair, Dora, Eustis and Griffin. To date the NuRF has treated 68 billion gallons of water and removed over 35,000 pounds of total phosphorus. In the past five years with above average rainfall and hurricanes, the facility as accumulated approximately 30 acre-feet of alum residual in its containment area. Currently the facility produces up to 20 cubic yards of alum residual (15% solids) per 8-hour shift. In recent years the facility has operated extended hours (up to 3 shifts and 7 days per week). The volume created has reduced the on-site storage capability and it will be further reduced with current and future dredging operations as the NuRF facility plans to expand and increase its capability to process dredged alum floc quicker. The purpose of this RFI is to obtain information from potential

4


RFI #2021-01

RESPONDERS that would remove dewatered alum residual from the NuRF and beneficially reuse or dispose of the material. LCWA staff has included several reports on the physical and chemical make up of the alum residual. Attachment A shows analyses of the material to determine the presence of any residual pesticide or herbicide. The report indicates parameters tested were non-detachable. Attachment B is an initial nutrient profile of the alum residual performed before a series of horticulture experiments conducted by the University of Florida (UF) using the alum residual for container production of plants. The experimental protocol and results from the UF study are included as Attachment C. In addition, a recent site evaluation was conducted at the NuRF to determine what upgrades in process technology may be required to improve facility treatment capabilities. Additional chemical analyses were performed on the alum residual for the site evaluation and the chemical analyses report is included as Attachment D.

B. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION INSTRUCTIONS 1) GENERAL INFORMATION

a. This RFI process will not result in a recommendation of or selection of any

RESPONDER, or the issuance of a purchase order or agreement of any type.

b. Confidential or proprietary information should not be included in the response. Any information, reports, or other materials given to, prepared, or submitted in response to this RFI shall be subject to the provisions and exceptions found in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, commonly known as the Florida Public Records Act. Once opened, all statements of qualifications shall become the property of the LCWA.

c. Questions and communications should be directed to the Water Resources

Director, Jason Danaher, via email at [email protected] with RFI 2021-01 in the subject line or by phone (352) 324-6141. Any oral communications will be considered unofficial and non-binding on the LCWA.

d. If this RFI is obtained other than through direct communication with the LCWA,

interested parties must notify Jason Danaher in order to receive any addenda to this RFI (if issued).

e. RESPONDERS are responsible for any and all expenses associated with

responding to this RFI. Neither the LCWA nor its representatives shall be liable for any expenses incurred in connection with preparation of a response to this RFI. All statements should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straight forward and concise description of the RESPONDER’s ability to meet the requirements of the RFI.

5


RFI #2021-01

f. Any procurement by the LCWA as a result of this RFI will be subject to a separate solicitation process and subject to budget approval.

2) INTENT TO HOLD DISCOVERY SESSIONS

a. Intent:

RESPONDERS believed to meet the minimum qualifications of the RFI will be offered an opportunity to consult with the LCWA staff. The purpose of the consultation (“Discovery Session”) is to afford RESPONDERS the opportunity to ask questions about the NuRF operation and gain a better understanding of the issues and circumstances driving this project, thereby assisting the RESPONDERS in preparing a well-designed informative response which offers the best product solution for this project. RESPONDERS are not required to participate in this process.

b. Discovery Session Dates and Contact Information:

To participate in a “Discovery Session,” RESPONDERS must contact Jason Danaher at (352) 324-6141 by Friday October 30, 2020 to schedule a meeting time. Preset time slots will be scheduled on a first come, first selection basis. Tentative dates are November 10th, 11th, and 12th, 2020.

c. Discovery Session Purpose: The RESPONDER’s representatives participating in the “Discovery Session” are

responsible for asking questions about NuRF operations only. Discovery Sessions are not for marketing and giving presentations. The meetings during the “Discovery Session” will be held individually between the RESPONDER and the LCWA staff. The questions and answers will not be documented or provided in an addendum to other parties unless the LCWA deems the information to be material to add to RFI. In this case, an Addendum will be issued to all RESPONDERS on record as known to receive a copy of this RFI.

d. Use of Information: It is the sole responsibility of the RESPONDER’s staff to ascertain and interpret

information gained from their session for use in developing their reply in response to the RFI. Documented information contained in the RFI and addenda will take precedence if any conflict arises between the RFI and addenda and information the RESPONDER’s representatives glean from the discovery meeting.

e. Meeting Logistics and Specifics: The RESPONDER’s staff may meet with the LCWA staff in person, via phone or

video conference. There will be a specific timeframe during which these meetings will be offered based on 30 minute time slots per meeting. On-site meetings will be held at the NuRF located at 16100 CR 48, Mount Dora, Florida 32757. There is no guarantee an on-site meeting at the NuRF will occur due to

6


RFI #2021-01

the COVID-19 pandemic. For a phone or video conference, the LCWA will provide a phone number or link, respectively, to the business contact person prior to the Discovery Session meeting date. Participants in the Discovery Session are solely responsible for any and all costs associated with their participation.

3) RESPONSE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

a. Submittal Response Date and Location: Submittals must be received by mail to the Lake County Water Authority, 27351

SR 19, Tavares, FL 32778 no later than 4:00 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 25, 2020. All submittals and accompanying documentation will become the property of the LCWA and will not be returned. Emailed and faxed submittals will not be accepted.

b. INFORMATION Documents: INFORMATION documents shall be printed in ink clearly and legibly on standard 8.5" x 11" paper and in a format corresponding to these instructions. Any oversized documents must be folded to standard size and secured with the other documents. The RESPONDER shall submit one (1) original and three (3) copies of its INFORMATION and supporting documents. In addition, RESPONDER shall provide one (1) digital version on CD or USB flash drive in PDF format. All submittals shall be in a sealed envelope plainly marked on the outside, "2021-01 RFI for Transporting and Beneficial Use or Disposal of Alum Residual”. The emphasis of the INFORMATION should be on responding to the requirements set forth in this Request for Information.

c. INFORMATION Format: The INFORMATION shall be submitted in the following format with all the necessary information and documentation to demonstrate RESPONDER’s ability to perform this service and must follow the question by question format as shown and sequenced as ordered in Section C “LCWA QUESTIONNAIRE” (simply list the number and question and provide an answer below each question). Additional supplemental information may be submitted in the form of brochures, PowerPoint presentations, case studies, reports, and digital media etc.

C. LCWA QUESTIONNAIRE Respondents must answer the following questions:

1. Describe the proposed process for alum residual transportation and beneficial

reuse or disposal.

2. Does the process receive alum residual or does it receive soils that meet the Clean Soil Criteria as described in the Clean Soil Criteria of Chapter 62-777 Florida Administrative Code?

7


RFI #2021-01

3. Does RESPONDER currently use this process to receive and reuse or dispose

of alum residual from other municipalities?

a. If so, provide a listing of existing locations where the RESPONDER is utilizing this process and how long each location has been in operation.

b. Provide a listing of current contracts with municipalities for which the RESPONDER is using this process.

c. What is the typical duration of these contracts?

d. If the RESPONDER does not have existing facilities that use this process,

cite other facilities at which this process is being used successfully to receive and reuse or dispose of alum residual.

4. Describe how this process is environmentally beneficial or responsible. 5. Describe why the RESPONDER believes this process would be the best off-

site alternative for the NuRF alum residual. 6. Company Background and Experience:

a. Provide RESPONDER’s general background information including a summary of previous experience in alum residual processing or with similar types of material and how long RESPONDER’s company has been in business.

b. Briefly describe the organizational structure of the RESPONDER, location

of headquarters, number of facilities and offices, number of employees, and typical contact and title RESPONDER would assign to this type of project.

7. Permitting / Regulatory:

a. Does RESPONDER have permits to handle and transport alum residual?

i. If not, explain how permitting would be obtained. c. Does RESPONDER have a history of compliance with applicable

regulations? If so, provide details and history. d. What type of analyses are required to be performed on the alum residual

to move off-site? e. How often are the analyses required on an annual basis and what are

typical costs?

8


RFI #2021-01

f. Under a standard contract, would the LCWA be responsible for performing the analyses on alum residual, keeping records and reporting it to a permitting agency or would the RESPONDER?

i. Should the NuRF have permits to move the alum residual off-site?

i. If yes, explain how permitting would be obtained.

8. After reviewing the RFI Attachments A through D, does the RESPONDER

suggest additional tests be performed on the alum residual to determine higher uses other than landfilling?

a. If yes, what tests, what labs can perform these tests and what is the

approximate cost?

9. What is a typical schedule for transportation and acceptance of alum residual?

10. How would holidays, storms and other events be handled in scheduling transportation and acceptance of alum residual?

11. In the event RESPONDER is unable to handle alum residual for a period of

time due to mechanical failure, process upset, weather, or other events, what are the contingency plans to ensure continuous operations?

12. For budgetary purposes, provide an estimated average cost or range of cost

per wet ton and dry ton for the transportation and process. 13. Marketing:

a. Does your firm feel the alum residual can be a source of revenue for the LCWA rather than just an expense to be hauled off?

i. Has the RESPONDER worked with other Florida state government

agencies, that produce similar material as alum residual, to develop material resale opportunities and market development?

ii. If so, provide a list of existing agencies where the RESPONDER has

developed this relationship and how long each location has been in operation.

b. Does your firm help to manage public outreach, education and other

behavioral change strategies for material re-use similar to alum residual?

i. If so, provide a list of existing agencies where the RESPONDER has developed activities and provide handouts, PowerPoint presentation files, and/or websites demonstrating outreach capabilities.

9


RFI #2021-01

ii. How long has the RESPONDER been managing these type of outreach activities?

14. How far from the NuRF are the RESPONDER’s beneficial reuse areas or

facilities located? a. How many cubic yards of alum residual can the RESPONDER transport

and process each month?

b. What type of equipment does the RESPONDER recommend to remove

and transport alum residual?

i. Would this equipment be brought to the NuRF as needed or be left at the

NuRF?

(Rest of page left intentionally blank)

Lake County Water Authority PO #: Revised 12/03/1827351 SR 19 Client Project #: Sediment AnalysisTavares,FL 32778 Date Sampled: Oct 1, 2018

Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698

FLDOH: E83018 (Main Lab) FLDOH: E86562 (South Lab) FLDOH: E82405 (North Lab) FLDOH: E35834 (Keys Lab) Page 1 of 14

Report Summary

Date Received: Oct 2, 2018 FCL Project Manager: Robert J. Carpenter

Laboratory # Sample Description Analysis Chemist Location SampleMatrix379698SO1 Containment EPA351.2 VLB Main Lab Soil

EPA353.2 PCW Main LabEPA365.4 VLB Main LabEPA6010 EVB Main LabEPA6020 EVB Main LabEPA7471 EVB Main LabEPA8081 DLJ Main LabEPA8141 DLJ Main LabEPA8151 DLJ Main LabEPA9045 IAD Main LabSM2540 B PLB Main LabTotNitX8081 TGL Main LabX8141 TGL Main LabX8151 TGL Main Lab

Certificate of ResultsSample integrity was certified prior to analysis. Test results meet all requirements of the NELAC Standards except as noted inthe Quality Control Report. Uncertainties for these data are available on request. This report may not be reproduced in part;results relate only to items tested.


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Analysis Report

Lab #: 379698SO1 Sampled: 10/01/18 01:00 PM Desc: ContainmentParameter Result Units DF MDL PQL QC Batch Method CAS # AnalyzedTotal Nitrogen(as N) 3470 0 TotNit 17778-88-0Nitrate(as N) 14.6 mg/kg 10.0 0.100 0.200 10384704 EPA353.2 14797-55-8 10/03/18 10:08 AMNitrite(as N) 0.425 mg/kg 10.0 0.100 0.200 10384704 EPA353.2 14797-65-0 10/03/18 10:08 AMTotal Solids 27.3 %Wt 1.00 0.000250 0.000500 10384733 SM2540 B C-008 10/02/18Potassium 89.5 I mg/kg 5.00 50.0 100 10384750 EPA6010 7440-09-7 10/02/18Mercury 0.00631 mg/kg 50.0 0.00100 0.00200 10384830 EPA7471 7439-97-6 10/04/18Arsenic 2.19 mg/kg 1.00 0.100 0.200 10385140 EPA6020 7440-38-2 10/04/18Cadmium 0.100 U mg/kg 1.00 0.100 0.200 10385140 EPA6020 7440-43-9 10/04/18Chromium 17.4 mg/kg 1.00 0.100 0.200 10385140 EPA6020 7440-47-3 10/04/18Lead 0.926 mg/kg 1.00 0.100 0.200 10385140 EPA6020 7439-92-1 10/04/18Molybdenum 4.15 mg/kg 1.00 0.100 0.200 10385140 EPA6020 7439-98-7 10/04/18Nickel 0.325 mg/kg 1.00 0.100 0.200 10385140 EPA6020 7440-02-0 10/04/18Selenium 0.200 U mg/kg 1.00 0.200 0.400 10385140 EPA6020 7782-49-2 10/04/18Zinc 3.26 mg/kg 1.00 1.00 2.00 10385140 EPA6020 7440-66-6 10/04/18Phos_Pest_Extraction 30.1 g 1.00 10385228 X8141 10/08/18Lab pH (units) 6.00 pH 1.00 0.0100 0.0200 10385329 EPA9045 39-38-4 10/09/18 03:40 PMChlor_Herb_Extraction 30.0 g 1.00 10385418 X8151 10/09/18Azinphos Methyl 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 86-50-0 10/09/18Bolstar 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 35400-43-2 10/09/18Chlorpyrifos 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 2921-88-2 10/09/18Chlorpyrifos Methyl 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 10/09/18Coumaphos 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 56-72-4 10/09/18Demeton 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 8065-48-3 10/09/18Diazinon 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 333-41-5 10/09/18Dichlorvos 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 62-73-7 10/09/18Disulfoton 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 298-04-4 10/09/18Ethoprop 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 13194-48-4 10/09/18


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Lab #: 379698SO1 Sampled: 10/01/18 01:00 PM Desc: ContainmentParameter Result Units DF MDL PQL QC Batch Method CAS # AnalyzedEthyl Parathion 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 56382 10/09/18Fensulfothion 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 00115-90-2 10/09/18Fenthion 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 00055-38-9 10/09/18Malathion 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 10/09/18Merphos 30.0 UJ ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 150-50-5 10/09/18Methyl Parathion 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 298-00-0 10/09/18Mevinphos 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 7786-34-7 10/09/18Naled 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 300-76-5 10/09/18Phorate 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 298-02-2 10/09/18Ronnel 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 299-84-3 10/09/18Stirophos 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 961-11-5 10/09/18Tokuthion 15.0 U ug/kg 1.00 15.0 30.0 10385568 EPA8141 34643-46-4 10/09/18Trichloronate 30.0 U ug/kg 1.00 30.0 60.0 10385568 EPA8141 327-98-0 10/09/18Surr:Cl-NBTF (50-169%) 62.28% 1.00 1.00 2.00 10385568 EPA8141 10/09/18Chlor_Pest_Extraction 30.0 g 1.00 10385660 X8081 10/11/18TKN(as N) 3460 mg/kg 4000 800 1600 10385703 EPA351.2 7727-37-9 10/11/184,4'-DDD 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 72-54-8 10/16/184,4'-DDE 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 72-55-9 10/16/184,4'-DDT 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 50-29-3 10/16/18Aldrin 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 309-00-2 10/16/18Chlordane 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 57-74-9 10/16/18Dieldrin 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 60-57-1 10/16/18Endosulfan_I 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 959-98-8 10/16/18Endosulfan_II 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 33213-65-9 10/16/18Endosulfan_sulfate 3.30 U ug/kg 1.00 3.30 6.60 10385998 EPA8081 1031-07-8 10/16/18Endrin 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 72-20-8 10/16/18Endrin_Aldehyde 3.30 U ug/kg 1.00 3.30 6.60 10385998 EPA8081 7421-93-4 10/16/18Heptachlor 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 76-44-8 10/16/18Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 1024-57-3 10/16/18


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Lab #: 379698SO1 Sampled: 10/01/18 01:00 PM Desc: ContainmentParameter Result Units DF MDL PQL QC Batch Method CAS # AnalyzedLindane (g-BHC) 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 58-89-9 10/16/18Methoxychlor 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10385998 EPA8081 72-43-5 10/16/18Toxaphene 83.0 U ug/kg 1.00 83.0 166 10385998 EPA8081 8001-35-2 10/16/18a-BHC 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 319-84-6 10/16/18b-BHC 3.30 U ug/kg 1.00 3.30 6.60 10385998 EPA8081 319-85-7 10/16/18d-BHC 1.70 U ug/kg 1.00 1.70 3.40 10385998 EPA8081 319-86-8 10/16/18Surr:Tetrachloro-m-xylene (50-169%) 89.74% 1.00 1.00 1.00 10385998 EPA8081 10/16/18Total Phosphorus(as P) 4420 mg/Kg 4000 400 800 10386329 EPA365.4 7723-14-0 10/11/182,4,5-T 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 93-76-5 10/11/182,4,5-TP (Silvex) 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 93-72-1 10/11/182,4-D 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 94-75-7 10/11/182,4-DB 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 94-82-6 10/11/18Dalapon 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 75-99-0 10/11/18Dicamba 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 1918-00-9 10/11/18Dichlorprop 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 120-36-5 10/11/18Dinoseb 17.0 U ug/kg 1.00 17.0 34.0 10389793 EPA8151 88-85-7 10/11/18MCPA 170 U ug/kg 1.00 170 340 10389793 EPA8151 94-74-6 10/11/18MCPP 170 U ug/kg 1.00 170 340 10389793 EPA8151 93-65-2 10/11/18Surr:DCAA (50-169%) 108.41% 1.00 0.0100 0.0200 10389793 EPA8151 10/11/18


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Quality Report

Quality Control Batch: 10384704 Analyst: PCWBlank Result UnitsNitrate(as N) 0.0100U mg/kgNitrite(as N) 0.0100U mg/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimNitrate(as N) 1.02 mg/kg 1.00 102.00 90.00-110.00Nitrite(as N) 1.01 mg/kg 1.00 101.00 90.00-110.00

Matrix Spike Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim SampleNitrate(as N) 4.54 mg/kg 4.00 113.50 80.00-120.00 0.100UNitrite(as N) 4.45 mg/kg 4.00 111.25 80.00-120.00 0.100U

Matrix Spike Duplicate Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim Sample RPD RPD LimNitrate(as N) 4.58 mg/kg 4.00 114.50 80.00-120.00 0.100U 0.88 20.00Nitrite(as N) 4.48 mg/kg 4.00 112.00 80.00-120.00 0.100U 0.67 20.00

Quality Control Batch: 10384733 Analyst: PLBBlank Result UnitsTotal Solids 0.000250U %Wt

Quality Control Batch: 10384750 Analyst: EVBBlank Result UnitsPotassium 10.0U mg/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimPotassium 4.91 mg/kg 5.00 98.12 80.00-120.00


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Matrix Spike Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim SamplePotassium 5.55 mg/kg 5.00 94.32 75.00-125.00 0.832

Matrix Spike Duplicate Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim Sample RPD RPD LimPotassium 5.78 mg/kg 5.00 99.01 75.00-125.00 0.832 4.14 40.00

Quality Control Batch: 10384830 Analyst: EVBBlank Result UnitsMercury 0.0000200U mg/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimMercury 0.00103 mg/kg 0.00100 102.90 80.00-120.00

Quality Control Batch: 10385140 Analyst: EVBBlank Result UnitsArsenic 0.100U mg/kgCadmium 0.100U mg/kgChromium 0.100U mg/kgLead 0.100U mg/kgMolybdenum 0.100U mg/kgNickel 0.100U mg/kgSelenium 0.200U mg/kgZinc 1.00U mg/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimArsenic 0.105 mg/kg 0.100 105.30 80.00-120.00Cadmium 0.105 mg/kg 0.100 105.10 80.00-120.00Chromium 0.109 mg/kg 0.100 109.10 80.00-120.00Lead 0.106 mg/kg 0.100 106.30 80.00-120.00Molybdenum 0.108 mg/kg 0.100 108.30 80.00-120.00


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Quality Control Batch: 10385140 Analyst: EVBLaboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimNickel 0.113 mg/kg 0.100 112.80 80.00-120.00Selenium 0.0934 mg/kg 0.100 93.40 80.00-120.00Zinc 0.107 mg/kg 0.100 107.40 80.00-120.00

Matrix Spike Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim SampleArsenic 1.05 mg/kg 1.00 105.35 75.00-125.00 0.100UCadmium 1.19 mg/kg 1.00 118.78 75.00-125.00 0.100UChromium 1.12 mg/kg 1.00 110.82 75.00-125.00 0.00990Lead 1.07 mg/kg 1.00 106.15 75.00-125.00 0.00630Molybdenum 1.09 mg/kg 1.00 108.55 75.00-125.00 0.00390Nickel 1.13 mg/kg 1.00 113.12 75.00-125.00 0.00160Selenium 1.07 mg/kg 1.00 105.01 75.00-125.00 0.0202Zinc 1.07 mg/kg 1.00 106.86 75.00-125.00 0.00520

Matrix Spike Duplicate Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim Sample RPD RPD LimArsenic 1.05 mg/kg 1.00 105.42 75.00-125.00 0.100U 0.07 40.00Cadmium 1.14 mg/kg 1.00 114.18 75.00-125.00 0.100U 3.95 40.00Chromium 1.07 mg/kg 1.00 105.81 75.00-125.00 0.00990 4.58 40.00Lead 1.06 mg/kg 1.00 105.56 75.00-125.00 0.00630 0.55 40.00Molybdenum 1.10 mg/kg 1.00 109.63 75.00-125.00 0.00390 0.99 40.00Nickel 1.10 mg/kg 1.00 109.63 75.00-125.00 0.00160 3.13 40.00Selenium 0.982 mg/kg 1.00 96.22 75.00-125.00 0.0202 8.56 40.00Zinc 1.04 mg/kg 1.00 103.09 75.00-125.00 0.00520 3.57 40.00

Quality Control Batch: 10385568 Analyst: DLJBlank Result Units


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Quality Control Batch: 10385568 Analyst: DLJBlank Result UnitsAzinphos Methyl 15.0U ug/kgBolstar 30.0U ug/kgChlorpyrifos 15.0U ug/kgChlorpyrifos Methyl 15.0U ug/kgCoumaphos 15.0U ug/kgDemeton 30.0U ug/kgDiazinon 30.0U ug/kgDichlorvos 15.0U ug/kgDisulfoton 30.0U ug/kgEthoprop 30.0U ug/kgEthyl Parathion 30.0U ug/kgFensulfothion 15.0U ug/kgFenthion 15.0U ug/kgMalathion 15.0U ug/kgMerphos 30.0U ug/kgMethyl Parathion 15.0U ug/kgMevinphos 30.0U ug/kgNaled 30.0U ug/kgPhorate 30.0U ug/kgRonnel 30.0U ug/kgStirophos 30.0U ug/kgTokuthion 15.0U ug/kgTrichloronate 30.0U ug/kgSurr:Cl-NBTF 989 ug/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimAzinphos Methyl 114 ug/kg 133 85.84 50.00-170.00Bolstar 117 ug/kg 133 87.92 50.00-170.00Chlorpyrifos 118 ug/kg 133 88.42 50.00-170.00


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Quality Control Batch: 10385568 Analyst: DLJLaboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimChlorpyrifos Methyl 119 ug/kg 133 88.88 50.00-170.00Coumaphos 125 ug/kg 133 93.95 50.00-170.00Demeton 242 ug/kg 267 90.69 50.00-170.00Diazinon 119 ug/kg 133 89.08 50.00-170.00Dichlorvos 119 ug/kg 133 88.95 50.00-170.00Disulfoton 119 ug/kg 133 89.02 50.00-170.00Ethoprop 123 ug/kg 133 92.49 50.00-170.00Ethyl Parathion 113 ug/kg 133 84.64 50.00-170.00Fensulfothion 122 ug/kg 133 91.44 50.00-170.00Fenthion 120 ug/kg 133 90.33 50.00-170.00Malathion 115 ug/kg 133 86.22 50.00-170.00Merphos 65.0 ug/kg 133 48.78 50.00-170.00Methyl Parathion 122 ug/kg 133 91.19 50.00-170.00Mevinphos 93.7 ug/kg 133 70.27 50.00-170.00Naled 127 ug/kg 133 95.00 50.00-170.00Phorate 116 ug/kg 133 86.84 50.00-170.00Ronnel 117 ug/kg 133 88.04 50.00-170.00Stirophos 117 ug/kg 133 87.50 50.00-170.00Tokuthion 116 ug/kg 133 87.11 50.00-170.00Trichloronate 115 ug/kg 133 86.61 50.00-170.00Surr:Cl-NBTF 985 ug/kg 1330 73.91 50.00-170.00

Quality Control Batch: 10385703 Analyst: VLBBlank Result UnitsTKN(as N) 0.200U mg/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Quality Control Batch: 10385703 Analyst: VLBLaboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimTKN(as N) 3.11 mg/kg 3.00 103.63 90.00-110.00

Matrix Spike Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim SampleTKN(as N) 3.31 mg/kg 3.00 99.99 85.00-115.00 0.309

Matrix Spike Duplicate Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim Sample RPD RPD LimTKN(as N) 3.41 mg/kg 3.00 103.35 85.00-115.00 0.309 3.00 20.00

Quality Control Batch: 10385998 Analyst: DLJBlank Result Units4,4'-DDD 1.70U ug/kg4,4'-DDE 1.70U ug/kg4,4'-DDT 1.70U ug/kgAldrin 1.70U ug/kgChlordane 1.70U ug/kgDieldrin 1.70U ug/kgEndosulfan_I 1.70U ug/kgEndosulfan_II 1.70U ug/kgEndosulfan_sulfate 3.30U ug/kgEndrin 1.70U ug/kgEndrin_Aldehyde 3.30U ug/kgHeptachlor 1.70U ug/kgHeptachlor epoxide 1.70U ug/kgLindane (g-BHC) 1.70U ug/kgMethoxychlor 17.0U ug/kgToxaphene 83.0U ug/kga-BHC 1.70U ug/kgb-BHC 3.30U ug/kgd-BHC 1.70U ug/kg


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Quality Control Batch: 10385998 Analyst: DLJBlank Result UnitsSurr:Tetrachloro-m-xylene 12.2 ug/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim4,4'-DDD 3.95 ug/kg 4.17 94.76 50.00-170.004,4'-DDE 4.06 ug/kg 4.17 97.48 50.00-170.00Aldrin 4.06 ug/kg 4.17 97.33 50.00-170.00Dieldrin 4.14 ug/kg 4.17 99.43 50.00-170.00Endosulfan_I 4.07 ug/kg 4.17 97.76 50.00-170.00Endosulfan_II 4.11 ug/kg 4.17 98.54 50.00-170.00Endosulfan_sulfate 4.33 ug/kg 4.17 103.90 50.00-170.00Endrin 3.70 ug/kg 4.17 88.71 50.00-170.00Endrin_Aldehyde 4.29 ug/kg 4.17 102.93 50.00-170.00Heptachlor 4.07 ug/kg 4.17 97.77 50.00-170.00Heptachlor epoxide 4.20 ug/kg 4.17 100.79 50.00-170.00Lindane (g-BHC) 4.02 ug/kg 4.17 96.51 50.00-170.00Methoxychlor 3.96 ug/kg 4.17 95.13 50.00-170.00a-BHC 3.97 ug/kg 4.17 95.35 50.00-170.00b-BHC 3.92 ug/kg 4.17 94.05 50.00-170.00d-BHC 3.97 ug/kg 4.17 95.18 50.00-170.00Surr:Tetrachloro-m-xylene 18.4 ug/kg 16.7 110.61 50.00-170.00

Quality Control Batch: 10386329 Analyst: VLBBlank Result UnitsTotal Phosphorus(as P) 0.100U mg/L

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimTotal Phosphorus(as P) 1.59 mg/L 1.50 106.04 90.00-115.00


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Matrix Spike Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim SampleTotal Phosphorus(as P) 1.69 mg/L 2.00 81.55 85.00-115.00 0.0602

Matrix Spike Duplicate Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim Sample RPD RPD LimTotal Phosphorus(as P) 1.73 mg/L 2.00 83.32 85.00-115.00 0.0602 2.06 20.00

Quality Control Batch: 10389793 Analyst: DLJBlank Result Units2,4,5-T 17.0U ug/kg2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 17.0U ug/kg2,4-D 17.0U ug/kg2,4-DB 17.0U ug/kgDalapon 17.0U ug/kgDicamba 17.0U ug/kgDichlorprop 17.0U ug/kgDinoseb 17.0U ug/kgMCPA 170U ug/kgMCPP 170U ug/kgSurr:DCAA 23.7 ug/kg

Laboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC Lim2,4,5-T 35.1 ug/kg 33.3 105.34 50.00-170.002,4,5-TP (Silvex) 34.9 ug/kg 33.3 104.78 50.00-170.002,4-D 35.7 ug/kg 33.3 107.06 50.00-170.002,4-DB 37.9 ug/kg 33.3 113.82 50.00-170.00Dalapon 24.6 ug/kg 33.3 73.84 50.00-170.00Dicamba 35.5 ug/kg 33.3 106.49 50.00-170.00Dichlorprop 33.4 ug/kg 33.3 100.06 50.00-170.00Dinoseb 22.8 ug/kg 33.3 68.45 50.00-170.00MCPA 3680 ug/kg 3330 110.54 50.00-170.00MCPP 3070 ug/kg 3330 92.07 50.00-170.00


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Quality Control Batch: 10389793 Analyst: DLJLaboratory Control Sample Result Units Spike %REC %REC LimSurr:DCAA 32.8 ug/kg 33.3 98.26 50.00-170.00


Oct 17, 2018; Invoice: 379698


Narrative Report

Sample HandlingSample handling and holding time criteria were met for all samples. Samples collected by submitter. Results are reported on adry weight basis. This report is revised and re-issued to correct the data value to "Undetected" for Dichloroprop. There was apeak detected within the retention time (RT) on GC column 1, but it was not within the RT on GC 2 confirmation column.

Quality ControlEnclosed analyses met method or FCL criteria, unless otherwise denoted on the sample results. Applied data qualifiers aredefined below.

Additional CommentsThe "Merphos J" value indicates that the LCS recovered below the lab control limit. There was no detection in the associatedsample(s).

AttachmentsChain of Custody

Qualifier MeaningU Compound was analyzed for but not detected.J Estimated value; one or more QC components associated with this data value exceed current QC limits.Q Sample held beyond the accepted holding time.L Off-scale high; reported concentration exceeds the highest standard.V Analyte was detected in both the sample and the associated method blank.W The dissolved oxygen blank was above 0.2 mg/L but less than the MDL.Z Too numerous to count colonies on plate.A AbsentP PresentT Value reported is less than the statistical method detection limit. Reported for informational purposes only.M Value reported is greater than the statistical method detection limit, but less than the reported MDL.G The greatest of the dilutions performed did not yield sufficient oxygen depletion for valid data.S The least of the dilutions performed did not yield sufficient oxygen residual for valid data.O Result is greater than (over) the specified value.I Reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit.B Results based upon colony plate count outside ideal range.Y The laboratory analysis was from an improperly preserved sample. The data may not be accurate.

Lab Number : 99543 Sample Id :

23697Grower :

Analytical Testing

Client :

University of FloridaReport No:Cust No:

18-162-0225

Mr. Chris Marble

Apopka , FL 32703

2725 S. Binion Rd.

MEDIA ANALYSIS

Date Printed: 06/19/2018

Date Sampled :

Page : 1 of 1

Date Recd: 06/11/2018PO:

1A

TestTEST RATINGSNormal Range

Low HighResults

pH

Soluble Salts, dS/m (mS/cm)

Phosphorus, ppm

Potassium, ppm

Calcium, ppm

Magnesium, ppm

Iron, ppm

Manganese, ppm

Zinc, ppm

Copper, ppm

Boron, ppm

Sulfur, ppm

Sodium, ppm

Aluminum, ppm

Nitrogen, ppm

Molybdenum, ppm

Ammoniacal Nitrogen, ppm

Nitrate Nitrogen, ppm

800

1600

1500

800

20016

0.80.35

195

2910

2915

3925

10030

20080

20050

305

20040

300

200

3

6

0.7

5

40

5.5

0.43

27

0.023

26.9

0.9

9.3

50

24

34.3

4.6

1.3

1.0

0.2

17

16

3.5

0.01

29.60

Low Acceptable Optimum High Very High

Comments :

SME DTPA extractable.

636

209

230

60

64

473

374

933

610

416

119

190

588

368

1090

Chloride, ppm

Oscar Ruiz

Attachment B

1

Evaluation of Alum Residual in Ornamental Horticulture Production in Central Florida

Final Research Report November 20, 2019

Chris Marble and Jianjun Chen University of Florida/IFAS Mid-Florida Research and Education Center

Apopka, FL

Attachment C

2

Executive Summary

The overall objective of this project was to evaluate the use of alum residual (AR) as a component of nursery and greenhouse potting substrates. Central Florida is home to a high concentration of greenhouse and nursery production facilities. Finding suitable uses of AR in the ornamental horticulture industry in Central Florida would create an effective and economical means of AR disposal while providing benefits to local growers. This report discusses our methodology and results. It should be noted that as a component of this research, plant tissue analysis was analyzed by an outside laboratory in order to reduce costs and provide us with results on a faster timeline. Trials were conducted utilizing AR as both a topdress material for weed management and as a component of soilless potting substrates to determine the impact of AR on weed germination and ornamental crop growth in nursery and greenhouse environments. Project objectives were carried by Dr. Chris Marble, assistant professor, ornamental and landscape weed management, and Dr. Jianjun Chen, professor, plant physiology. Dr. Marble led and directed all weed management trials and Dr. Chen led and directed container evaluations using AR as a potting soil amendment. All weed management trials and assessments of AR as a topdressing material were repeated in time to validate results. As container substrate evaluations were more complex and a greater number of data were collected, experiments were not repeated but both individual experiments conducted to meet both project objectives contained enough experimental replications and were conducted in a manner that would be acceptable for publication in reputable and high quality scientific journals. Studies using AR as a topdress material for weed management showed that while AR amendment at up to a 2 inch depth had no effect on growth or marketability of four commonly grown ornamental species, weed growth was not consistently decreased. Spurge growth decreased approximately 30 to 40% when AR was topdressed but crabgrass growth increased. Germination of weed seeds and a bioassay species also showed that most weeds would be able to germinate and grow in pots topdressed with AR. In substrate evaluations, ficus growth and marketability were not affected with AR added as a substrate amendment at up to a 20% ratio. Ligustrum and dieffenbachia were also rated as highly marketable throughout the trial although growth did decrease slightly when AR was included as an amendment. Viburnum was the most sensitive species to AR and growth and marketability was generally lower when AR was added at a 10% or greater ratio, but no growth differences were observed at 5% AR. Based on our work, we believe AR would have potential for use as a substrate amendment with other commonly used materials such as peat moss or pine bark. In general, AR amendment would likely cause a slight increase in substrate pH, have no or little effect on EC, but would increase bulk density and water holding capacity while likely reducing container air space. Due to the wide variety of ornamentals grown in central Florida and the differences in taxa observed, small scale testing would be needed by growers to determine which production variables to alter to make AR work in their production systems.

3

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of this project was to evaluate the use of alum residual (AR) as a component of nursery and greenhouse potting substrates. Central Florida is home to a high concentration of greenhouse and nursery production facilities. Finding suitable uses of AR in the ornamental horticulture industry in Central Florida would create an effective and economical means of AR disposal while providing benefits to local growers. This report discusses our methodology and results. It should be noted that as a component of this research, plant tissue analysis was analyzed by an outside laboratory in order to reduce costs and provide us with results on a faster timeline. Trials were conducted utilizing AR as both a topdress material for weed management and as a component of soilless potting substrates to determine the impact of AR on weed germination and ornamental crop growth in nursery and greenhouse environments. Project objectives were carried by Dr. Chris Marble, assistant professor, ornamental and landscape weed management, and Dr. Jianjun Chen, professor, plant physiology. Dr. Marble led and directed all weed management trials and Dr. Chen led and directed container evaluations using AR as a potting soil amendment.

METHODOLOGY Note: In all cases, trials were conducted in Apopka during 2019. Prior to use of AR in these studies, it had to be processed in a manner that allowed it to be useful to growers. AR was collected and then stored in an outdoor covered barn on plastic for 10 days during hot and dry weather until it was no longer moist and broke easily into small fragments. After drying, we first pulled a metal roller behind a tractor over the dried AR 5 times. The material was then sifted through custom built screens to separate out particles that were greater than 0.38 inches (material pieces that did not pass through a 0.38 inch. screen). This material was further crushed by hand using a tamp until materials passed through a 0.25 inch screen for herbicide studies or a 0.125 inch screen for substrate studies described below.

Primary Objective 1: Assessment of AR as a weed management tool in container nursery production

Assessing weed germination in AR. In order to determine if AR soil or the leachate from AR has any phytotoxic or inhibitory effects on germination of weed seeds, in vitro bioassay studies were performed at the Mid-Florida Research and Education Center in Apopka, FL. The species chosen for these trials included spotted spurge (Euphorbia maculata), bittercress (Cardamine flexuosa), and radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Spotted spurge and bittercress were chosen because they are two common and troublesome weeds in container nursery production and in landscapes (Van Wychen, 2016). Radish was chosen as a test species because it is routinely used in bioassay experiments to detect allelochemicals, herbicides, high/low nutrient concentrations, and other nutritional or environmental abnormalities (Haugland and Brandsaeter, 1996). Seeds (100) of each of the aforementioned species were counted and placed in 47 mm diameter petri plates containing germination paper (Fisher Scientific International, Inc. Hampton, NH). The control treatment was distilled water. The distilled water was measured with syringes and 3 ml was placed in each petri plate directly on the germination paper. For the AR soil treatment, AR was obtained and allowed to dry in a rainout shelter for 7 days in ambient

4

conditions. The material was then crushed so that it would pass through a 3.35 mm soil sieve. The AR was then placed in each petri plate on top of the germination paper and 4 ml of water was added to each plate. For the AR leachate treatment, the AR material was stored, dried, and processed as previously mentioned. AR was then placed in 30 ml test tubes and water was added. The tubes were then placed on a rotary extraction device that turned the test tubes end over end at 30 +/- 2 revolutions per minute for 18 hours. This methodology generally followed the EPA 1312 synthetic precipitation procedure but the procedure was modified to mimic irrigation water leaching through AR residual on the surface of a soilless substrate. Each treatment was replicated 8 times and two separate experimental runs were conducted. After each treatment was prepared, 25 seeds of each species were added to separate petri dishes and each petri dish was sealed with parafilm. The petri dishes were placed in constant temperature of 75°F for 12 days. After 12 days, emerged seedlings that were healthy (no distorted growth, no chlorosis or other phytotoxic signs) were counted (Figure 1). All data were subjected to a mixed model analysis of variance using JMP software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Treatment (water, AR soil and AR leachate) were considered fixed effects while replication was considered a random effect. As no treatment by experimental run interactions were observed, results were pooled over both experimental runs. Differences in germination rates between different treatments were determined using Fisher’s Protected LSD (P<0.05).

Figure 1. Representative sample of each treatment and species combination in petri dishes.

5

Topdressing experiment with ornamentals. To control weed growth, we aimed to evaluate AR as a topdress material. In order to ensure this methodology would cause no harm to ornamentals, we concurrently evaluated AR as a topdress material both for weed growth and as a topdress to assess any injury or growth affects to ornamental species. Experiments were initiated on March 11, 2019 to determine the effects of topdressing AR on soilless substrates planted with key ornamental species including dune sunflower (Helianthus debilis), muhlygrass (Muhlenbergia capillaris), Walter’s viburnum (Viburnum obovatum), and loropetalum (Loropetalum chinensis). Species were chosen because they are native to the region or are economically important container ornamentals (i.e. loropetalum). Liners (2 in.) were obtained from local nurseries and potted into #1 gal. (3.8 L) containers on March 11. The potting soil had previously been amended with 14 lbs. of Osmocote 17-5-11 + micronutrients and 5.5 lbs. dolomitic lime on a cubic yard basis via incorporation. Following potting, plants were placed on a full sun container pad and irrigated via overhead irrigation at 0.5 in. daily. The day after potting, AR was topdressed to potted containers at depths of 0.5, 1, or 2 inches or pots were left as is without AR (non-treated control). The trial was a completely randomized design with 7 plant replications per treatment for each species, and each species was grouped separately. Data collected included phytotoxicity ratings on a 0 to 10 scale (0 = no injury, similar in appearance to controls, 10 = dead plant) at 30, 60, 90, and 120 days after treatment (DAT). Growth index (average of plant height + plant width1 + plant width2) was also collected at 60 and 120 DAT and shoot fresh weights were collected at 120 DAT. Data were subjected to a mixed model analysis of variance in JMP (SAS Institute) and means were separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD at a 0.05 significance level. The study was repeated on March 20 following the same timeline and procedures. Evaluation of AR as a weed management tool. Nursery containers (1.7 L) were filled with the potting substrate mentioned above and topdressed with AR at depths of 0.5 in., 1.0 in., or left as is (not topdressed) on April 9. Nontreated controls (no AR, no herbicide) were included in the trial for comparison. On April 10, herbicides including dimethenamid-P (Tower 6.0 EC, BASF Corp.) or prodiamine (Barricade 4FL, Syngenta) were applied at rates of 32 and 48 fl. oz. respectively using a CO2 backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 50 gallons per acre. This represented the manufacture labeled rate of each herbicide. Herbicides were applied to separate sets of containers and herbicide treated pots were not topdressed with AR. Pots were placed inside a greenhouse and received 0.3 in. of overhead irrigation each day. On April 12, garden spurge (Euphorbia hirta) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) seeds were surface sown to containers. Dimethenamid-P was used as a bioassay species for spurge while crabgrass was used for prodiamine. These species/herbicide combinations were chosen because each herbicide is highly efficacious and recommended for each species. This resulted in a trial with two species and four treatments per species in order to determine if weed growth was similar in pots topdressed with AR vs. pots not topdressed with AR and the herbicide treated pots were included for comparison to determine how weeds grew in AR topdressed pots vs. standard grower practices of using preemergence herbicide applications. At 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after treatment, 6 replicates from each treatment were removed and seeded with each species as described above. This allows determination of the length of control achieved with AR topdressing vs. length of control achieved with standard

6

preemergence herbicides. At 8 weeks after seeding, fresh weights are being determined for each set of pots. This trial is designed as a completely randomized trial with 6 single pot replications per treatment for each species, and each weed species was analyzed separately. Prior to analysis, shoot fresh weights were converted to percent reduction in growth of weeds in treated pots (herbicide or AR topdressed) in comparison with the non-treated control. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and means separated using Fisher’s protected LSD (0.05). Primary Objective 2: Assessment of AR as a component of soilless substrates for growth of greenhouse or container-grown ornamentals

On April 25, eight substrates were mixed with four used for evaluation of foliage plants (greenhouse production) (F substrates) and four evaluated for landscape plant production (outdoor container production) (L substrates). Substrates combinations evaluated in greenhouse and container studies. Substrates were mixed on a v:v basis as shown below.

Substrate No. Peat Vermiculate Perlite AR

Greenhouse Substrates

F-1 (Control) 60% 20% 20% 0%

F-2 55% 20% 20% 5%

F-3 50% 20% 20% 10%

F-4 40% 20% 20% 20%

Outdoor Container Substrates

Substrate No. Peat Pine bark Sand AR

L-1 (Control) 30% 60% 10% 0%

L-2 30% 60% 5% 5%

L-3 30% 60% 0% 10%

L-4 25% 55% 0% 20%

Tissue cultured Dieffenbachia ‘Snow’ and Ficus lyrata liners were obtained from Sunshine Horticulture Co. (Apopka, FL) and transplanted into 6 in. containers filled with substrates F-1 to F-4, respectively on May 7, 2019 (Figure 4). There were 18 pots per treatment. New roots appeared from liner plugs a week after being potted in the respective substrates. Rooted cuttings of Ligustrum lucidum and Viburnum odoratissimum liners obtained from Liner Source, Inc. (Eustis, FL) were transplanted to 1 gallon containers filled with substrates L-1 to L-4, respectively on May 7 (Figure 5). There were 15 pots per treatment. New roots appeared from liner plugs 10-15 days after being potted in the respective substrates.

7

Figure 2. Substrates evaluated for greenhouse crops (ficus and dieffenbachia).

Figure 3. Example of substrates evaluated for outdoor container production (ligustrum and

viburnum).

8

After potting, a controlled release fertilizer (Osmocote Plus, 15-9-12, 8-9M standard release pattern containing micronutrients) was applied to fertilize the plants at three rates per substrate including 3.3, 6.7, and 10 grams representing a low, medium and high fertility rate. Similarly, landscape plants were fertilized with the same fertilizer at rates of 13.3, 26.7, and 40 g per container. This experiment was designed as a 4 (substrate) × 3 (fertility level) factorial with 5 (outdoor container trials) or 6 (greenhouse trials) single pot replications per treatment. Data collected included monthly substrate EC and pH using standard pour-through analysis, plant growth index [(plant height + plant width1 + plant width2/3], and marketability ratings on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = poor, 2 = substandard and unsalable, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent). At trial conclusion, leaf counts were recorded for both greenhouse species, and leaf chlorophyll content was assessed on all species using a SPAD chlorophyll meter (Minolta Co.). Root ratings were taken on all species by removing plants from the pots and rating root growth on a 0 to 5 scale where 0 = no visible roots and 5 = the root ball fully covered with visible roots.

Figure 4. Greenhouse foliage plants evaluated. Photo taken soon after potting.

Figure 5. Ligustrum and viburnum soon after potting into AR containing substrates.

9

Dry weights were also recorded for all shoot tissues by cutting plants at the soil line, placing shoots in a forced air oven at 80°C (176°F) for 48 hours until reaching constant weight. In addition to above variables, substrates were analyzed for nutritional content (at trial initiation) for concentrations of ammonium, nitrate, phosphorous, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, boron, copper, zinc, molybdenum, nickel, chloride, sulfate, sodium, aluminum, silicon, pH and EC, and physical properties including bulk density, moisture content, air space, container capacity, total porosity, and bulk density. Leaf tissue nutritional content for all major elements was assessed at trial conclusion on 4 randomly selected replicates per treatment for each species. All data were subjected to analysis of variance and analyzed as a factorial to check for significant main effects (substrate or fertility rate) and interactions. When significant main effects or interactions were significant, treatment means were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD (P = 0.05) in order to make individual treatment comparisons with AR amended substrates and the control, rather than examine trends using orthogonal contrasts.

RESULTS Primary Objective 1: Assessment of AR as a weed management tool in container nursery production

Assessing weed germination in AR. Spurge germination was low in all treatments (less than 3%) in both trial runs (Table 1). This is possibly because the temperature was set to an ideal temperature for radish and bittercress and was approximately 5°F cooler than the optimum temperature for spurge. Regardless, no treatment differences were observed for spurge with any treatment. In bittercress, both AR treatments (soil and leachate) resulted in similar germination to that observed with distilled water. Similar results were observed with radish. For all three species, no phytotoxic effects were observed on surviving seedlings (no chlorosis, distortion, etc.).

No further weeds were evaluated as radish is typically a very sensitive species and it is unlikely other prevalent weed species would be impacted if radish were not. This provides an indication that when used alone or if weeds are exposed to leachate, AR will likely have little to any detrimental effect on plant growth. Topdressing experiment with ornamentals. No differences in marketability/phytotoxicity ratings were observed with any species throughout the 120-day trial when using AR as a topdress regardless of depth (Table 2). Similarly, no growth differences were observed with most of the

Spotted spurge Bittercress Radish

Treatment (Euphorbia maculata ) (Cardamine flexuosa ) (Raphanus raphanistrum )

alum residual 0.6 (2%)NS 14.1 (56%) a 24.1 (96%)NS

alum residual leachate 0.8 (3%)NS 10.3 (41%) b 22.6 (90%)NS

water check 0.8 (3%)NS 13.1 (52%) ab 21.9 (88%)NS

Table 1. Germination of two weed (spotted spurge and bittercress) and one bioassay (radish)

species following treatment with alum residual or alum residual leachate in vitro .

*Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fisher's

Protected LSD, P <0.05). Numbers shown parenthetically are percent germination. NS = treatment

was non-significant in overal analysis of variance.

10

species as evidenced by crop growth indices and shoot dry weights. The one exception was muhlygrass, in which plants topdressed with AR were slightly smaller than the non-treated control. While growth index differed, shoot dry weights showed similar biomass among all treatments. It should be noted that sunflower data were not analyzed due to a high mortality rate in all treatments, including the non-treated controls. This likely resulted from a root disease but root pathogens could not be detected after symptoms became severe.

30DATy 60DAT 90DAT 120DAT

Treatment Depth (in.)

Control 0.0 0.6v 1.0 0.4 0.4 19.1 21.7

Alum residual 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 18.6 23.1

Alum residual 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 21.4 30.6

Alum residual 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 17.6 21.4

Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.6 a 106.3

Alum residual 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.9 b 106.6

Alum residual 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 c 108.4

Alum residual 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 c 97.9

Control 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 41.7 84.2

Alum residual 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 43.1 78.8

Alum residual 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 36.2 71.6

Alum residual 2.0 1.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 38.5 76.8

Control 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 14.9 22.2

Alum residual 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 11.5 22.7

Alum residual 1.0 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 17.8 24.2

Alum residual 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 14.9 23.8

xGrowth index = average of plant height + plant width1 + plant width2.wDry weight shows shoot dry weights recorded at 120 DAT.vMeans followed by the same letter or no letter are not significantly different according

to Fisher's Protected LSD (0.05).uNA = not analyzed. Beach sunflower data were not analyzed due to high mortality rate

in all treatments related to root disease.

Loropetalum

Muhly grass

Beach sunflower (NA)u

Walter's viburnum

zPhytotoxicity ratings were recorded on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 = no injury observed and 10 =

dead plant.yDAT = days after treatment. Trials were initiated on March 11, 2019.

Table 2. Response of container ornamentals to alum residual topdressing.

Phytotoxicity (0 to 10)z

Growth

index

(cm)x

Dry Wt.

(g)w

11

Figure 6. Top (L-R) viburnum and loropetalum; Bottom (L-R) muhlygrass and sunflower. Photo taken at 60 days after trial initiation and shows plants with no AR, AR at 0.5 in., AR at 1 in. and AR at 2 in (L to R). Note that a disease caused death of many sunflower plants. Evaluation of AR as a weed management tool. For garden spurge, topdressing with AR reduced spurge fresh weights at 0, 2, and 4 weeks as compared with the non-treated check, ranging from 28% reduction up to 47% reduction. However, use of herbicide reduced growth by 75 to 100% during these same evaluations (Table 3). AR did not provide the same level of control as the herbicide, but spurge growth was decreased by approximately 50% in comparison with a substrate-only (non-topdressed) control. At 8 WAT, spurge growth was only reduced by 13 to 14% in AR topdressed pots compared with a 58% reduction in herbicide treated pots. By 16 WAT, AR provided a similar level of spurge suppression as the non-treated control (~30 to 40%) but control would not have been considered acceptable in any treatment.

12

Figure 7. (L-R) AR at 0.5, AR at 1.0, herbicide, non-treated check. Note that while growth looks

similar, fewer leaves, thinner stems, and overall less biomass was observed in AR pots compared with the non-treated control. Photo taken at 8 weeks after seeding using pots that

were sown with spurge seed 4 weeks after treatment.

Treatmenty 0 WATx 2 WAT 4 WAT 8 WAT 12 WAT 16 WAT

AR - 0.5 inches -10 cw -56 b -13 b -71 b -87 b -94 b

AR - 1.0 inches 7 b -127 c -210 c -99 b -65 b -136 b

Herbicide 100 a 100 a 100 a 100 a 99 a 100 a

Treatment 0 WAT 2 WAT 4 WAT 8 WAT 12 WAT 16 WAT

AR - 0.5 inches 28 b 41 b 41 b 14 b 25 b 34 a

AR - 1.0 inches 46 b 41 b 47 b 13 b 6 b 31 a

Herbicide 100 a 98 a 75 a 58 a 53 a 44 a

wMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fisher's

Protected LSD, p = 0.05).

Table 3. Evaluation of alum residual as a topdressed weed management tool.

Large crabgrass control (%)z

Garden spurge control (%)

zControl shows the percent reduction provided by treatments in relation to a

non-treated control. Negative values indicate a weed growth increase.yAR = alum residual applied as a topdress. Prodiamine was evaluated for

crabgrass control while dimethenamid-P was evaluated for garden spurge.xWAT = weeks after treatment and shows when seeds were sown. Shoot

weights were recorded at 8 weeks after seeds were sown in all cases.

13

Crabgrass was similar or greater in AR topdressed pots in comparison with the non-treated control on all evaluation dates (Table 3). In most instances, crabgrass growth was greater in pots topdressed with AR compared to non-treated pots as evidences by negative control values that indicate growth greater than the non-treated control.

Summary of AR as a weed management tool AR caused no negative consequences to growth to any of the ornamental species evaluated over a 120 day period. However, AR was also not found to be suitable as a weed management tools. While some reductions in spurge growth were observed, crabgrass growth increased, likely due to the greater water holding capacity of AR compared with standard pinebark media. Overall, AR would not be recommended as a topdress for the purposes of weed suppression in a container nursery when used alone. It has been established that preemergence herbicides typically bind more tightly and provide longer residual control when applied to soil/clay particles compared with pine bark substrates due to more binding sites and less potential for downward leaching (Senseman, 2007). While we found no use for AR when used alone as a topdress material for the purposes of weed control, as it was safe for ornamentals, it could potentially be used as a topdress to extend the length of control of preemergence herbicides due to its clay like properties after processing. In addition to the agreed upon objectives, we are conducting another study using AR as a topdress material combined with use of herbicides. In this trial, herbicides including dimethenamid-P, isoxaben, and prodiamine were applied at labeled rates to pots that contained a standard pine bark substrate or a standard pine bark substrate topdressed with AR. A non-treated control is included. The trial contained 6 replications and is being repeated. To date, herbicides are performing similarly in both standard and AR topdressed containers. We will continue to evaluate using methodology described above where we seed at monthly intervals to determine length of control. Results will be shared with Lake County Water Authority if interested upon trial conclusion.

Figure 8. Early results from additional weed management trial (additional to original trial objectives). Note the decreased performance of isoxaben in standard substrate vs. substrate topdressed with AR.

14

Primary Objective 2: Assessment of AR as a component of soilless substrates for growth of greenhouse or container-grown ornamentals Note: In order to simplify results and discussion, each species is discussed separately. In order to present similar types of data together for the reader, we grouped data either by species or by recorded variable, whichever made data presentation easier to follow. Dieffenbachia. Neither growth or substrate (or the interaction) was significant at 1 or 2 months after treatment (MAT) indicating that no differences in substrate were observed (Table 4 and 5). Growth differences based on growth index were only observed at 4 MAT in which the control was larger than all pots containing AR at any level. However, marketability ratings were similar among all treatments on all evaluation dates and all were graded as being excellent or close to excellent. For leaf counts, all AR treatments had lower leaf counts than the non-treated control (Tables 9 and 10). Fertility was also significant with the highest fertility level having the greatest number of leaves, as would be expected. When evaluating shoot dry weights, the control and AR at 5% were similar but plants were smaller than the controls when AR was added in at 10 or 20%. Root ratings followed the same trend as shoot dry weights. For SPAD chlorophyll data, no differences in leaf chlorophyll content were detected in AR treated plants and the non-treated control.

Figure 9. Dieffenbachia ‘snow’ growth in 0-20% AR amended substrate (L to R) at A-low fertility, B-

Medium, C- High.

15

Ficus. No substrate effects were observed throughout the trial when assessing plants by growth index or marketability (Tables 4 and 6). All plants were highly marketable and similar in size throughout the trial based on these assessments. The only differences that were observed were in plant growth index at 3, 4, and 5 MAT when the higher fertility levels resulted in plants with greater growth, but AR had no effect at ratios of up to 20%. Similar to these results, no substrate effects were observed when considering ficus dry weights, leaf counts, root ratings, or SPAD readings, all taken at trial conclusion (Table 10). Overall, AR had no detrimental or beneficial effect on ficus growth at ratios of up to 20%.

Figure 10. Ficus growth in 0-20% AR amended substrate (L to R) at A-low fertility, B-Medium, C- High.

Ligustrum. No differences in ligustrum growth index were observed at 1 MAT based on substrate, however plants at the highest fertility level were largest (Tables 4 and 7). At 2 MAT, this trend with fertility level continued but plants with AR at 10 or 20% were also smaller than the non-treated control. At this time, plants containing 5% AR were similar to the control. Data at 4 MAT followed the same trend. By 5 MAT, all ligustrum with AR substrates were smaller than the nontreated control, indicating that growth decreased over time in pots with AR as a substrate component. Marketability ratings were similar in that no differences were observed at 1, 2, or 3 MAT but plants with AR at 20% had slightly

16

lower marketability ratings than the non-treated control. It should be noted however that all plants had mean marketability ratings greater than 4 and would be considered marketable and salable and of good quality. Shoot dry weights were confirmation that AR decreased growth as all plants with AR were smaller than the control and dry weight typically decreased as AR percentage increased (Tables 9 and 10). Root ratings followed the same trend and decreased as AR concentration increased. SPAD data however showed no differences in leaf chlorophyll content and all plants were dark green and showed no signs of stress other than growth differences. This corresponds to the high marketability ratings that were observed throughout the trial. Overall, ligustrum were still marketable and of good quality with grown with AR at up to 20% but growth did decrease with increasing AR percentage.

Figure 11. Ligustrum growth in 0-20% AR amended substrate (L to R) at A-low fertility, B-Medium, C-

High

17

Viburnum. Viburnum was the most sensitive species to AR in this evaluation. While no differences were observed at 1 MAT, growth reductions were observed at 2 MAT when AR was applied at 20% (Tables 4 and 8). At 3 through 5 MAT, plants were significantly smaller when AR was amended at 10 and 20%, but AR at 5% caused no difference in growth. Marketability ratings generally followed this same trend, but viburnum marketability was generally lower than the three other species in all treatments. In some cases, plants were chlorotic and growth was slow overall. Shoot dry weights and root ratings confirmed findings with growth index as plants treated with AR at 10 or 20% were smaller than the control and plants treated with AR at only 5%.

Figure 12. Viburnum growth in 0-20% AR amended substrate (L to R) at A-low fertility, B-Medium, C-

High

18

1 MAT 2 MAT 3 MAT 4 MAT 5 MAT 1 MAT 2 MAT 3 MAT 4 MAT 5 MAT

substrate 0.3022 0.3991 0.0204 0.0178 0.2915 0.2406 0.0880 0.5709 0.5644 0.2871

fertilizer rate 0.4175 0.2863 0.7565 0.7512 0.9952 0.5596 0.1472 0.0184 0.0173 0.0002

substrate × fertilier rate 0.4588 0.4487 0.1393 0.1275 0.9765 0.0004 0.2582 0.9664 0.9657 0.3965

substrate 0.9825 0.0184 0.0094 0.0112 0.0001 0.4173 0.0019 0.0007 0.0004 0.0001

fertilizer rate 0.0040 0.0001 0.0092 0.0107 0.0722 0.9807 0.2053 0.2571 0.2294 0.1154


substrate 0.4333 0.3998 0.3260 0.3095 1.0000 0.6963 0.9471 0.0039 0.0037 0.5758

fertilizer rate 0.3036 0.3745 0.9569 1.0000 1.0000 0.5085 0.1868 0.0101 0.0098 0.6090


substrate 0.6028 0.4173 0.1043 0.0945 0.0284 0.0001 0.0009 0.0013 0.0008 0.0005

fertilizer rate 0.3157 0.9807 0.1959 0.1847 0.0062 0.0010 0.1770 0.1475 0.1294 0.2600


substrate NA 0.1702 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 NA 0.0502 0.3217 0.3495 0.0001

fertilizer rate NA 0.1357 0.0012 0.0001 0.1692 NA 0.1669 0.6924 0.5141 0.1763

substrate × fertilier rate NA 0.1823 0.4330 0.0906 0.6963 NA 0.3423 0.1760 0.0767 0.1391

substrate NA 0.6645 0.7648 0.0732 0.8772 NA 0.1844 0.5874 0.1054 0.4480

fertilizer rate NA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0010 0.0292 NA 0.0001 0.0001 0.0471 0.0007

substrate × fertilier rate NA 0.0327 0.6059 0.1226 0.2720 NA 0.0148 0.9615 0.7958 0.5042

Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for four greenhouse or container-grown ornamental species growth with alum residual

amended substrates.

Growth index P-value

Dieffenbachia Ficus

Ligustrum Viburnum

Ligustrum Viburnum

Marketability ratings P-value

Dieffenbachia Ficus

Substrate Electrical conductivity (EC) P-value

Substrate pH P-value

***ANOVA based on mixed model analysis using JMP (SAS, Inc.) software. Main effects or interactions were considered

significant at P = < 0.05 and are bolded when significant. NA = not analyzed as limited time had elapsed since fertilization was

applied.

Dieffenbachia Viburnum

19

Substratex 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

Peat:Vermiculite:Perlite:AR

60:20:20:0 (check) 13.2w 12.8 12.8 12.9 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.9

55:20:20:5 12.8 12.7 13.5 13.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

50:20:20:10 11.2 13.1 12.3 12.2 4.7 5.0 5.0 4.9

40:20:20:20 12.8 13.7 12.8 13.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mean (fertility) 12.5 13.1 12.8 4.9 5.0 5.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 19.6 27.3 17.4 21.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

55:20:20:5 17.6 18.6 19.8 18.6 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9

50:20:20:10 18.3 18.5 18.6 18.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

40:20:20:20 17.1 19.2 18.2 18.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mean (fertility) 18.1 20.9 18.5 5.0 5.0 5.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 33.9 31.6 33.2 32.9 a 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

55:20:20:5 25.2 28.6 33.6 29.2 b 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.9

50:20:20:10 29.3 28.5 26.6 28.1 b 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.9

40:20:20:20 28.8 29.1 27.8 28.6 b 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mean (fertility) 29.3 29.5 30.3 5.0 5.0 5.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 33.8 31.6 33.2 32.9 a 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

55:20:20:5 25.2 28.7 33.6 29.2 b 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.9

50:20:20:10 29.3 28.5 26.6 28.1 b 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.9

40:20:20:20 28.7 29.1 27.8 28.6 b 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mean (fertility) 29.3 29.5 30.3 5.0 5.0 5.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 37.1 37.4 37.7 37.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

55:20:20:5 34.4 36.1 36.5 35.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

50:20:20:10 35.2 34.1 32.9 34.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

40:20:20:20 36.4 36.1 36.1 36.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mean (fertility) 35.8 35.9 35.8 5.0 5.0 5.0

Growth indexz Marketabilityy

Table 5. Growth and marketability of Dieffenbachia grown with alum residual amended substrates.

1 MAT

Fertility (g/pot) Mean

(substrate)


(substrate)

2 MAT

3 MAT

5 MAT

xSubstrate shows the composition of each substrate on a volume basis.wMeans within a column or row followed by the same letter are significantly different according to Fisher's Protected

LSD (P = 0.05). Means followed by no letter were not analyzed due to no significant main effect or interaction.

zGrowth index = [(plant height + width1 + width2)/3] and is shown in cm. MAT = months after treatment.yMarketability ratings were taken on a 1 to 5 scale where 1 = poor, 3 = salable, and 5 = excellent.

4 MAT

20

Substratex 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

Peat:Vermiculite:Perlite:AR

60:20:20:0 (check) 18.6w 19.7 20.3 a 19.5 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.9

55:20:20:5 17.6 19.3 19.8 a 18.9 5.0 4.8 5.0 4.9

50:20:20:10 20.1 16.9 18.1 a 18.4 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.9

40:20:20:20 19.7 19.7 15.4 b 18.3 5.0 5.0 4.3 4.8

Mean (fertility) 19.0 18.9 18.4 4.9 4.9 4.8

60:20:20:0 (check) 25.8 25.7 27.0 26.2 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.8

55:20:20:5 24.6 25.9 24.8 25.1 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.8

50:20:20:10 23.1 24.7 24.5 24.1 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.8

40:20:20:20 25.1 27.7 23.7 25.5 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.9

Mean (fertility) 24.6 26.0 25.0 4.8 4.9 5.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 31.1 34.4 34.2 33.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

55:20:20:5 30.6 32.9 34.9 32.8 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.8

50:20:20:10 30.0 33.5 32.3 31.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

40:20:20:20 32.0 33.8 35.9 33.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Mean (fertility) 30.9 b 33.7 a 34.3 a 4.9 5.0 5.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 31.1 34.4 34.2 33.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

55:20:20:5 30.6 32.9 34.9 32.8 4.5 b 5.0 a 5.0 a 4.8

50:20:20:10 30.0 33.5 32.3 31.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

40:20:20:20 32.0 33.8 35.9 33.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0


60:20:20:0 (check) 37.2 42.3 41.7 40.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

55:20:20:5 34.7 40.9 42.4 39.4 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.9

50:20:20:10 34.7 39.9 42.9 39.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9

40:20:20:20 41.0 42.7 41.4 41.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0


Mean

(substrate)

Fertility (g/pot)


Table 6. Growth and marketability of Ficus grown with alum residual amended substrates.

1 MAT

Mean

(substrate)

Fertility (g/pot)

2 MAT

3 MAT

5 MAT




4 MAT

21

Substratex 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

Peat:Pinebark:Sand:AR

30:60:10:0 (check) 16.3w 18.5 21.5 18.8 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.9

30:60:5:5 16.8 19.6 19.3 18.6 4.8 4.4 5.0 4.7

30:60:0:10 17.3 18.3 20.8 18.8 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.9

25:55:0:20 18.7 17.5 20.8 19.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.9

Mean (fertility) 17.3 b 18.5 b 20.6 a 4.9 4.8 5.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 26.7 26.5 30.3 27.8 a 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

30:60:5:5 24.7 24.6 27.9 25.8 ab 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.7

30:60:0:10 21.4 22.7 29.3 24.4 b 4.2 5.0 4.8 4.7

25:55:0:20 21.2 22.1 27.0 23.4 b 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.7

Mean (fertility) 23.5 b 24.0 b 28.6 a 4.7 4.9 4.8

30:60:10:0 (check) 33.6 38.7 38.2 36.8 a 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

30:60:5:5 29.6 32.3 37.7 33.2 ab 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

30:60:0:10 24.1 37.0 30.1 30.4 b 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.9

25:55:0:20 28.5 29.3 31.1 29.6 b 4.8 5.0 4.6 4.8


30:60:10:0 (check) 33.6 38.7 38.2 36.8 a 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

30:60:5:5 29.6 33.3 37.7 33.2 ab 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

30:60:0:10 24.1 37.0 30.1 30.4 b 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.9

25:55:0:20 28.5 29.3 31.1 29.6 b 4.8 5.0 4.6 4.9


30:60:10:0 (check) 46.3 55.3 51.1 50.9 a 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.7 ab

30:60:5:5 41.9 40.7 46.5 43.0 b 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.9 a

30:60:0:10 35.5 45.0 42.5 41.0 bc 3.8 4.6 4.8 4.4 bc

25:55:0:20 35.5 36.6 37.8 36.6 c 3.6 4.4 4.6 4.2 c

Mean (fertility) 39.8 44.4 44.5 4.2 b 4.7 a 4.8 a

Growth indexz

Table 7. Growth and marketability of Ligustrum grown with alum residual amended substrates.

1 MAT


(substrate)


(substrate)

Marketabilityy

3 MAT

2 MAT

5 MAT

4 MAT




22

Substratex 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0


30:60:10:0 (check) 14.5 bcw 15.2 15.7 15.1 2.8 b 4.2 a 4.0 3.7

30:60:5:5 16.8 a 14.7 13.9 15.1 3.8 a 4.4 a 3.8 4.0

30:60:0:10 12.8 c 15.1 14.9 14.3 3.0 b 3.8 a 3.4 3.4

25:55:0:20 15.2 ab 13.9 14.4 14.5 3.0 b 2.8 b 3.0 2.9

Mean (fertility) 14.8 14.7 14.7 3.2 3.8 3.6

30:60:10:0 (check) 16.1 19.5 18.5 18.0 ab 2.2 3.4 3.2 2.9 ab

30:60:5:5 19.8 17.9 18.0 18.6 a 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.2 a

30:60:0:10 14.1 17.1 16.5 15.9 bc 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.3 bc

25:55:0:20 12.6 14.9 15.5 14.3 c 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 c

Mean (fertility) 15.7 17.3 17.1 2.5 2.9 2.5

30:60:10:0 (check) 13.2 24.5 21.4 19.7 a 1.6 2.6 2.2 2.1 ab

30:60:5:5 19.8 22.1 18.0 20.0 a 2.6 3.2 2.2 2.7 a

30:60:0:10 13.0 15.9 15.6 14.8 b 1.0 2.2 0.8 1.3 c

25:55:0:20 12.1 8.6 12.5 11.1 b 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.5 bc

Mean (fertility) 14.5 17.8 16.9 1.7 2.3 1.8

30:60:10:0 (check) 13.2 24.5 21.4 19.7 a 1.6 2.6 2.2 2.1 ab

30:60:5:5 19.8 22.1 18.0 20.0 a 2.6 3.2 2.2 2.7 a

30:60:0:10 13.0 15.9 15.6 14.8 b 1.0 2.2 0.8 1.3 c

25:55:0:20 12.1 8.6 12.5 11.1 b 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.5 bc

Mean (fertility) 14.5 17.8 16.9 1.7 2.3 1.8

30:60:10:0 (check) 15.2 31.2 25.1 23.8 a 2.0 3.6 2.4 2.7 ab

30:60:5:5 21.8 24.1 21.6 22.5 a 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.4 a

30:60:0:10 14.1 15.9 16.0 15.3 b 1.6 2.6 1.8 2.0 bc

25:55:0:20 13.5 11.5 13.6 12.9 b 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.5 c

Mean (fertility) 16.2 20.7 19.1 2.2 2.8 2.3

Table 8. Growth and marketability of Viburnum grown with alum residual amended substrates.

Mean

(substrate)


(substrate)

1 MAT

Fertility (g/pot)


3 MAT

2 MAT

5 MAT

wMeans within a column or row followed by the same letter are significantly different according to Fisher's

Protected LSD (P = 0.05). Means followed by no letter were not analyzed due to no significant main effect or

interaction.

4 MAT

xSubstrate shows the composition of each substrate on a volume basis.


23

Dieffenbachia Ficus Ligustrum Viburnum

substrate 0.0001 0.0546 0.0001 0.0026

fertilizer rate 0.3173 0.0219 0.0001 0.3626

substrate × fertilier rate 0.0593 0.8156 0.4221 0.2719

substrate 0.0001 0.06325 NA NA

fertilizer rate 0.0002 0.00018 NA NA

substrate × fertilier rate 0.1716 0.05581 NA NA

substrate 0.0005 0.8806 0.0001 0.0001

fertilizer rate 0.0042 0.0650 0.1020 0.0043


substrate 0.0381 0.0442 0.2727 0.4846

fertilizer rate 0.4087 0.4771 0.1858 0.8011


Table 9. Analysis of variance for four greenhouse or container-grown ornamental species

growth with alum residual amended substrates.

Root ratings P-value

SPAD chlorophyl readings P-value

Leaf counts P-value

Shoot dry weights P-value

***ANOVA based on mixed model analysis using JMP (SAS, Inc.) software. Main effects or

interactions were considered significant at P = < 0.05 and are bolded when significant.

24

3.3/13.3 6.7/26.7 10.0/40.0 3.3/13.3 6.7/26.7 10.0/40.0

Substrateu

60:20:20:0 (check) 21.0v 19.5 27.0 22.5 a 11.8 13.7 14.5 13.3

55:20:20:5 18.8 17.0 21.0 18.9 b 12.5 14.0 14.2 13.6

50:20:20:10 17.5 17.2 17.8 17.5 b 10.7 12.5 12.2 11.8

40:20:20:20 14.5 16.5 21.2 17.4 b 13.3 13.7 14.5 13.8

Mean (fertility) 18.0 b 17.5 b 21.8 a 12.1 b 13.5 ab 13.8 a

60:20:20:0 (check) 73.7 66.8 59.8 66.7 a 60.8 65.8 62.9 63.2

55:20:20:5 62.6 61.8 64.7 63.0 a 58.7 61.9 63.8 61.5

50:20:20:10 53.6 62.2 57.0 57.6 b 58.2 60.9 61.6 60.2

40:20:20:20 53.6 57.0 53.2 54.6 b 62.9 64.8 63.9 63.9

Mean (fertility) 60.9 62.0 58.7 60.1 b 63.3 a 63.1 a

30:60:10:0 (check) 92.7 117.2 122.3 110.8 a 51.0 68.4 55.8 59.5 a

30:60:5:5 86.5 85.4 107.5 93.1 b 58.1 63.2 57.2 58.4 a

30:60:0:10 71.5 88.1 92.2 83.9 bc 50.8 43.1 49.1 47.6 b

25:55:0:20 73.2 78.9 87.3 79.8 c 49.7 48.3 39.6 45.9 b

Mean (fertility) 81.0 c 92.4 b 102.3 a 52.4 55.7 50.5

60:20:20:0 (check) 4.8 4.7 3.7 4.4 a 3.5 3.8 4.7 4.0

55:20:20:5 4.7 4.3 3.8 4.3 a 3.7 4.3 3.8 3.9

50:20:20:10 3.5 3.8 2.8 3.4 b 3.5 4.3 3.7 3.8

40:20:20:20 3.7 3.3 2.8 3.3 b 4.0 3.7 4.3 4.0

Mean (fertility) 4.2 a 4.0 a 3.3 b 3.7 4.0 4.1

30:60:10:0 (check) 3.4 4.6 3.8 3.9 a 0.4 1.6 1.0 1.0 a

30:60:5:5 3.0 2.2 3.6 2.9 b 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.4 a

30:60:0:10 1.6 2.2 2.6 2.1 c 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 b

25:55:0:20 2.0 1.6 2.2 1.9 c 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 b

Mean (fertility) 2.5 2.7 3.1 0.4 b 1.1 a 0.5 b

60:20:20:0 (check) 33.6 49.3 46.4 43.1 ab 54.6 54.8 49.4 52.9 a

55:20:20:5 49.1 49.3 50.2 49.5 a 43.5 51.4 50.2 48.4 ab

50:20:20:10 39.2 40.0 32.9 37.2 b 47.3 39.8 50.8 46.0 b

40:20:20:20 41.8 44.8 43.4 43.3 ab 43.5 48.3 49.4 47.1 b

Mean (fertility) 40.9 45.7 43.2 47.2 48.6 49.9

30:60:10:0 (check) 53.0 51.1 48.5 50.9 42.6 43.9 47.4 44.6

30:60:5:5 45.9 51.4 44.9 47.4 41.1 53.7 63.9 52.9

30:60:0:10 47.2 65.8 54.4 55.8 44.4 41.1 30.7 38.8

25:55:0:20 56.4 63.6 51.8 57.2 44.0 36.5 49.9 43.4

Mean (fertility) 50.6 58.0 49.9 43.1 43.8 47.9

yTotal fully formed emerged leafs were counted for dieffenbachia and ficus at trial conclusion.

wSPAD is an indication of leaf greeness or chlorophyll content and was assessed using a Minolta SPAD meter.

Table 10. Dry weights, leaf counts, root ratings, and SPAD chlorophyl content of four ornamental species grown in

alum residual amended substrates.

Dieffenbachia Ficus

Fertility (g/pot)zMean

(substrate)


(substrate)

Leaf countsy

Root ratingsx

Dieffenbachia Ficus

Shoot dry weights (g)

Dieffenbachia Ficus

Ligustrum Viburnum

Ligustrum Viburnum

SPAD chlorophyl contentw

Dieffenbachia Ficus

Ligustrum Viburnum

uSubstrate shows the composition of each substrate on a volume basis. Dieffebachia and ficus shows percentage of

peat:vermiculite:perlite: alum residual. Viburnum and ligustrum shows percentage of peat:pinebark:sand: alum

residual.

zDieffenbachia and ficus were fertilized at 3.3, 6.7, or 10 g per pot while ligustrum and viburnum were fertilized at

13.3, 26.7, or 40.0 g per pot.

xRoot ratings were recorded on a 0 to 5 scale where 0 = no roots and 5 = excellent roots as assessed by removing

plants from pots and inspecting visible roots within the rootball.

vMeans within a column or row followed by the same letter are significantly different according to Fisher's Protected


25

AR Effects on Substrate Leachate pH and EC and physical properties. In order to present a better graphical representation of substrate pH and EC, figures were built and data are discussed by fertility level to gather a better understanding of how AR affects pH and EC rather than focus on differences in how fertility affects these variables as it is well established. Therefore, data were analyzed as both a factorial (Table 4), and also by only examining differences in AR amendment at the different fertility levels which will be the focus of discussion. In general, AR had little effect on substrate pH on most evaluation dates, but tended to slightly increase the pH in both viburnum and dieffenbachia in which pH and EC were monitored (Table 11, Figures 13-18). Electrical conductivity was significant on several evaluation dates (Table 4) but mostly differed by rate, which would be expected. Substrate had little no consistent effect on EC level throughout the trial. Based on these findings, it would be expected that AR would provide some increase in solution alkalinity, but would have minimal impact on solution EC. AR Effects on Potting Substrate when used as an amendment. All eight individual substrates were analyzed by an outside laboratory for nutritional content and substrate physical properties as discussed above. Minimal differences were detected between AR amended substrates at ratios of up to 20% and the non-AR-containing control (Table 12) when assessing nutritional content. For the greenhouse substrate, higher nitrate was observed when AR was amended at 20% compared with the control while lower phosphorous levels were detected. Interestingly, no difference in aluminum levels were detected, likely because AR was only added at up to a 20% ratio and materials were assessed after potting but prior to fertility addition. In the outdoor container substrate, AR addition tended to increase nitrate, ammonium, and sulfate, and decrease phosphorous. It should be noted however that leaf analysis is currently being conducted and may illustrate important nutritional imbalances leading to decreased growth. Similar to pH and EC leachate analysis, AR addition tended to slightly increase substrate pH as measured by saturated media extract by the laboratory (Table 13). EC levels were also higher in AR amended substrates used in greenhouse evaluations, likely due to the higher nitrate concentrations. As expected AR tended to decrease airspace while increasing container capacity and bulk density for both substrates. This is likely due to the greater weight of the material and the higher water holding capacity of AR.

26

pH EC pH EC pH EC pH EC pH EC

Substratey

60:20:20:0 (check) 3.3 5.10 0.26 5.2 0.9 5.7 0.3 b 6.6 0.2 4.9 b 0.2 b

55:20:20:5 3.3 5.90 0.18 6.0 0.7 6.2 0.7 a 7.5 0.5 6.4 a 0.3 b

50:20:20:10 3.3 5.60 0.29 5.8 0.9 6.8 0.4 b 6.7 0.3 6.4 a 0.3 b

40:20:20:20 3.3 6.20 0.21 6.8 0.5 6.4 0.5 ab 7.1 0.3 6.7 a 1.1 a

60:20:20:0 (check) 6.7 4.60 0.35 5.2 1.7 5.0 b 1.3 4.8 b 0.2 4.7 b 0.6

55:20:20:5 6.7 6.00 0.31 5.1 1.5 6.6 a 1.2 5.9 ab 0.6 6.3 a 0.3

50:20:20:10 6.7 6.00 0.23 5.8 1.9 6.7 a 0.7 6.2 b 0.5 6.8 a 0.5

40:20:20:20 6.7 6.20 0.21 5.6 1.8 5.9 ab 1.0 6.7 b 0.3 7.1 a 0.3

60:20:20:0 (check) 10.0 4.70 0.54 5.1 3.4 a 4.2 c 2.3 5.1 c 0.6 4.2 b 1.3

55:20:20:5 10.0 5.00 0.26 5.9 3.2 a 5.1 bc 3.4 5.7 bc 1.0 6.0 a 1.0

50:20:20:10 10.0 6.00 0.28 5.8 2.6 b 6.4 a 4.0 6.2 ab 2.2 6.6 a 1.1

40:20:20:20 10.0 6.30 0.25 5.0 3.7 a 5.4 b 3.5 6.7 a 0.8 6.6 a 1.1

30:60:10:0 (check) 13.3 6.20 0.23 7.0 0.4 7.1 0.3 6.4 0.3 7.0 0.2

30:60:5:5 13.3 5.60 0.15 7.1 0.3 7.0 0.3 7.7 0.3 7.5 0.2

30:60:0:10 13.3 5.20 0.10 7.1 0.4 7.4 0.3 7.4 0.3 5.8 0.2

25:55:0:20 13.3 4.40 0.15 7.0 0.4 7.3 0.4 7.1 0.4 6.5 0.2

30:60:10:0 (check) 26.7 6.60 0.25 6.8 0.6 a 7.2 0.5 7.6 0.3 7.2 a 0.2

30:60:5:5 26.7 5.10 0.15 7.0 0.4 b 7.2 0.6 6.4 0.3 7.1 a 0.3

30:60:0:10 26.7 5.00 0.19 7.1 0.4 b 7.2 0.6 7.0 0.5 6.7 b 0.3

25:55:0:20 26.7 4.50 0.22 7.0 0.5 ab 7.2 0.6 7.2 0.5 7.0 a 0.3

30:60:10:0 (check) 40.0 5.70 0.18 6.8 c 0.0 7.1 0.6 6.0 0.4 7.3 a 0.3

30:60:5:5 40.0 5.60 0.10 7.0 ab 0.6 7.2 0.7 6.9 0.4 7.2 a 0.3

30:60:0:10 40.0 4.80 0.21 6.9 bc 0.6 7.2 0.6 7.3 0.4 6.7 b 0.3

25:55:0:20 40.0 4.60 0.13 7.1 a 0.5 7.2 0.7 7.2 0.5 7.0 a 0.4zMAT = months after treatment.

ySubstrate shows the composition of each substrate on a volume basis. Dieffebachia shows percentage

of peat:vermiculite:perlite: alum residual. Viburnum shows percentage of peat:pinebark:sand: alum

residual.

**Signficance of main effects and interactions are shown in table 4 and illustrated in Figures 12-16.

Dieffenbachia

Rate

(g/pot)

1 MATz 2 MAT 3 MAT 4 MAT

Viburnum

Table 11. Mean pH and EC readings on a monthly basis for substrates amended with alum residual.

5 MAT

27

Figure 13. Leachate pH and EC of greenhouse substrate at low fertility level (3.3 g/pot) over 5 months. Statistics presented in Table 11.

28

Figure 14. Leachate pH and EC of greenhouse substrate at medium fertility level (6.7 g/pot) over 5 months. Statistics presented in Table 11.

29

Figure 15. Leachate pH and EC of greenhouse substrate at high fertility level (10 g/pot) over 5 months. Statistics presented in Table 11.

30

Figure 16. Leachate pH and EC of outdoor container substrate at low fertility level (13.3 g/pot) over 5 months. Statistics presented in Table 11.

31

Figure 17. Leachate pH and EC of outdoor container substrate at medium fertility level (26.7 g/pot) over 5 months. Statistics presented in Table 11.

32

Figure 18. Leachate pH and EC of outdoor container substrate at high fertility level (40 g/pot) over 5 months. Statistics presented in Table 11.

33

Substratez Nitrate Ammonium Phosphorous Potassium Calcium Magnesium Iron Manganese Boron

Peat:Vermiculite:Perlite:AR (NO3-N) (NH4-N) (P) (K) (Ca) (Mg) (Fe) (Mn) (B)

60:20:20:0 (check) 2.6 cy 0.0 3.3 a 22.6 ab 21.9 b 4.3 b 0.4 a 0.08 a 0.1

55:20:20:5 2.5 c 0.0 1.0 b 16.7 c 16.7 c 3.2 c 0.2 b 0.04 c 0.1

50:20:20:10 4.2 b 0.0 0.6 bc 21.1 b 26.0 b 4.5 b 0.2 b 0.05 b 0.1

40:20:20:20 14.8 a 2.6 0.4 c 25.4 a 36.9 a 7.0 a 0.2 b 0.07 a 0.1

Copper Zinc Molybdenum Nickel Chloride Sulfate Sodium Aluminum Silicon

(Cu) (Zn) (Mo) (Ni) (Cl) (SO4) (Na) (Al) (Si)

60:20:20:0 (check) 0.006 0.02 0.01 0.003 16.4 46.9 14.9 1.6 1.1

55:20:20:5 0.003 0.01 0.01 0.003 18.4 19.5 15.7 1.1 1.0

50:20:20:10 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.020 17.8 19.6 15.8 1.2 0.9

40:20:20:20 0.006 0.01 0.02 0.003 21.3 21.2 18.3 1.0 0.9

Nitrate Ammonium Phosphorous Potassium Calcium Magnesium Iron Manganese Boron

Peat:Pinebark:Sand:AR (NO3-N) (NH4-N) (P) (K) (Ca) (Mg) (Fe) (Mn) (B)

30:60:10:0 (check) 0.2 d 0.3 b 0.5 a 1.8 11.7 2.1 0.7 0.03 0.05

30:60:5:5 2.1 c 0.7 ab 0.2 b 2.9 13.8 3.0 0.6 0.04 0.06

30:60:0:10 4.5 b 1.1 ab 0.1 b 3.7 14.3 3.6 0.4 0.04 0.07

25:55:0:20 7.0 a 1.8 a 0.1 b 4.2 18.1 4.5 0.4 0.05 0.05

Copper Zinc Molybdenum Nickel Chloride Sulfate Sodium Aluminum Silicon

(Cu) (Zn) (Mo) (Ni) (Cl) (SO4) (Na) (Al) (Si)

30:60:10:0 (check) 0.000 0.003 0.01 0.003 19.4 4.2 c 18.0 0.6 1.4

30:60:5:5 0.000 0.003 0.01 0.001 19.3 7.6 bc 17.3 0.6 1.1

30:60:0:10 0.003 0.003 0.02 0.000 20.7 8.4 b 19.1 0.5 1.0

25:55:0:20 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.002 16.6 14.1 a 17.4 0.5 1.0zSubstrate shows ratio of components on a volume (v:v) basis. yMeans followed by the same or no letters were not significantly different based on Fisher's protected LSD test ( P =0.05).

Average values (ppm)

Table 12. Nutrient content of substrates used in greenhouse and outdoor container evaluations.

34

AR effects on foliar nutrient concentrations. (Note: all nutrients are discussed based on recommended ranges found in Bryson et al., 2014). Few consistent treatment differences were observed in plant foliar nutritional concentration regardless of substrate or fertility rate for any of the four species. In Dieffenbachia, nitrogen concentrations were mostly within acceptable ranges, and all AR treatments had similar N concentrations in comparison with the control group (Table 14). Phosphorus concentrations tended to increase as AR increased and there was little difference in potassium concentration, indicating that AR had no consistent effect on K concentration. Dieffenbachia tended have high levels of calcium, magnesium, and copper but lower levels of zinc, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, and aluminum regardless of treatment. In Ficus, no substrate differences were observed in foliar N but fertility rate did tend to increase N concentration as would be expected. Control plants had slightly higher levels of foliar phosphorus. While phosphorus levels were higher in the control plants (containing no AR), no differences in growth were observed, so the differing levels had little to no significant effect on growth or marketability (Table 15). All ficus plants, regardless of treatment, were slightly lower than recommended ranges of potassium, sulfur, zinc, and silicon. Additionally, plants had low concentrations of aluminum despite AR having a comparatively high level of aluminum on its own prior to incorporation in the substrate mix. Plants treated with AR at 20% did have higher levels of aluminum in leaf tissues, however. Ficus were slightly higher in boron, nickel, molybdenum and sodium, but none of the lower or higher than recommended concentrations of nutrients caused any impact to plant growth or marketability over a 5-month span.

Substratez

Peat:Vermiculite:Perlite:AR (mS/cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (g/cc)

60:20:20:0 (check) 4.3 cy 0.3 bc 7.1 29.9 a 39.9 b 69.9 0.20 b

55:20:20:5 4.6 bc 0.2 c 8.5 23.1 ab 43.7 b 66.8 0.22 ab

50:20:20:10 4.9 b 0.3 b 8.7 23.9 ab 42.6 b 66.5 0.21 b

40:20:20:20 5.3 a 0.4 a 8.3 17.6 b 50.2 a 67.8 0.24 a

Recommended x 4.4-6.5 0.5-1.0 NA 10-30 45-65 50-85 0.15-0.30


30:60:10:0 (check) 4.4 0.2 8.4 25.8 a 46.9 72.7 ab 0.12 b

30:60:5:5 4.4 0.2 8.1 31.1 a 45.2 76.3 a 0.13 b

30:60:0:10 4.7 0.2 7.3 26.2 a 48.7 75.0 a 0.16 a

25:55:0:20 5.1 0.2 7.8 13.9 b 53.6 67.5 b 0.17 a

Recommended 4.4-6.5 0.5-1.0 NA 10-30 45-65 50-85 0.15-0.30

Table 13. pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and physical properties of substrates used in greenhouse and

outdoor container experiments.

zSubstrate shows ratio of components on a volume (v:v) basis. yMeans followed by the same or no letters were not significantly different based on Fisher's protected

LSD test (P =0.05).xRecommended ranges are based on the Southern Nursery Association Best Management Practices and

represent general guidelines. Recommended levels may not be ideal for all ornamentals.

Bulk

density

Total

porosity

Container

capacity

Air

space

Moisture

contentpHEC

35

Substrate and AR concentration had little to no influence on nutritional concentrations in ligustrum (Table 16). In most cases, only fertility rate was significant. Substrate was a significant effect for concentrations of potassium, with slightly lower concentrations of potassium being observed in plants with AR at 10 or 20%. Similarly, magnesium concentration tended to decrease as AR percentage increased. Boron tended to increase slightly when AR was amended while zinc and silicon tended to decrease. No differences were observed in aluminum regardless of fertility rate or substrate. Overall, while AR tended to have some effect on foliar nutritional content, differences were not significant in and no major deficiencies or toxicities were observed. In viburnum, most nutrients were slightly lower than recommended ranges with the exception of boron, and sodium, which were generally high regardless of treatment (Table 17). Nitrogen concentrations were mostly low, but no substrate or fertility rate had any significant effect across the three fertilization treatments. For phosphorus, all AR amended substrates had slightly lower levels of foliar P, but levels were low overall. No treatment effects (substrate or fertility) were observed for potassium. All calcium levels were generally low, but Ca was lower in treatments containing AR compared with the non-treated (no AR) plants. Few other trends were observed, including with aluminum in which most treatments were similar to the control that contained no AR. Further, aluminum levels tended to be lower than the normal range in viburnum. Overall, no consistent trends were observed between AR concentration and foliar concentrations of nitrogen, potassium, sulfur, boron, copper, molybdenum, or nickel. While some individual treatment differences were observed, no two species had a similar or observable trend when examining AR concentration and levels of these nutrients. Possible trends were observed between AR concentration and foliar concentrations of phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and manganese. Phosphorus concentration tended to be lower in AR amended substrates when examining ficus and viburnum. In dieffenbachia and viburnum, calcium tended to decrease (at the highest AR concentration) as AR concentration increased. Similarly, magnesium concentrations were lower in viburnum and ligustrum at higher AR concentrations. Manganese was also lower in ficus and viburnum as AR concentration increased and this was determined to be a linear decrease (as AR concentration increased, manganese concentration decreased). A stronger trend was observed for zinc and silicon. In viburnum, ligustrum, and ficus, zinc and silicon concentrations decreased at higher AR concentrations, but the trend was not always linear. Plant nutritional interactions are highly complex, affected by many factors such as soil pH, and not all are fully understood for all crops (Fageria, 2001). No obvious trends were observed in this research, and data presented here shows that AR would likely not cause any clear or obvious nutritional imbalances in these four ornamental species. Further, no trend was observed across all four species which would be likely if AR clearly had a detrimental effect on crop growth. It is possible that under certain conditions, AR could create nutritional imbalances for some plants, but these could likely be corrected by either reducing or increasing applications of complete fertilizers and micronutrient packages.

36

Substrate 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 3.0 4.2 3.9 3.7 abw 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 b 3.6 4.1 3.8 3.9 bc 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.9 a

55:20:20:5 3.2 3.6 3.8 3.5 b 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.22 b 4.2 4.7 4.4 4.4 ab 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 a

50:20:20:10 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.5 b 0.34 0.34 0.43 0.37 a 4.5 4.9 5.4 4.9 a 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.2 a

40:20:20:20 3.5 3.9 4.3 3.9 a 0.21 0.48 0.34 0.34 a 2.4 4.0 3.6 3.3 c 1.4 1.9 2.4 1.9 b

Mean (fertility) 3.3 b 3.8 a 3.9 a 0.25 0.32 0.30 3.7 4.4 4.3 2.6 2.8 2.9

3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.75 0.20 0.25 0.21 0.22 127.9 196.6 99.9 141.5 260.9 b 271.7 b 171.9 c 234.9

55:20:20:5 0.67 0.66 0.89 0.74 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 100.1 136.1 115.8 117.3 260.3 b 357.6 b 303.6 b 307.1

50:20:20:10 0.61 0.55 1.04 0.73 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.22 108.3 106.9 142.8 119.3 514.6 a 634.3 a 774.9 a 641.3

40:20:20:20 0.45 0.58 0.54 0.53 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.22 72.3 151.9 113.1 112.4 508.9 a 153.7 c 178.9 c 280.5

Mean (fertility) 0.61 0.63 0.81 0.22 0.22 0.22 102.1 b 147.9 a 117.9 ab 386.2 354.3 357.3

3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 22.9 23.6 19.5 22.1 6.1 6.2 b 5.1 ab 5.8 76.4 58.7 38.5 57.9 bc 1.23 0.84 b 0.89 b 0.99

55:20:20:5 20.9 21.3 21.8 21.4 4.1 5.3 b 3.9 bc 4.4 81.5 70.7 58.4 70.2. ab 0.11 0.84 b 1.23 a 0.73

50:20:20:10 21.9 21.1 25.3 22.8 2.9 1.2 c 1.8 c 2.0 116.8 81.9 77.4 92.1 a 0.95 0.41 b 0.61 b 0.67

40:20:20:20 19.3 28.4 22.5 23.4 1.4 13.8 a 7.6 a 7.6 30.9 38.5 48.3 39.3 c 0.13 1.83 a 0.66 b 0.89

Mean (fertility) 21.3 23.6 22.3 3.6 6.1 4.6 76.4 62.5 55.7 0.61 0.98 0.85

3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 0.01 0.96 0.01 0.32 b 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 b 37.0 30.8 16.3 28.0 332.0 287.3 301.9 307.1 bc

55:20:20:5 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.12 b 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 b 23.0 34.5 20.9 26.2 360.1 380.4 381.9 374.1 ab

50:20:20:10 0.01 4.21 6.42 3.54 a 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 a 15.0 14.2 24.1 17.7 448.9 381.1 641.2 490.5 a

40:20:20:20 3.98 4.67 3.74 4.13 a 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 b 34.3 17.0 24.3 25.2 240.1 207.7 222.7 223.5 c

Mean (fertility) 0.99 2.46 2.62 0.04 0.04 0.04 27.3 24.1 21.4 345.3 314.1 387.0

Zinc (Zn) Mean

(substrate)

Calcium (Ca) Mean

(substrate)

Magnesium (Mg) Mean

(substrate)

Sulfur (S) Mean

(substrate)

Iron (Fe) Mean

(substrate)

Manganese (Mn) Mean

(substrate)

Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P)Mean

(substrate)

Mean

(substrate)

Potassium (K) Mean

(substrate)

Table 14. Effects of alum residual amendmentz and three fertility ratesy on Dieffenbachia nutrition tissue analysisx.

Molybdenum (Mo) Mean

(substrate)

Nickel (Ni) Mean

(substrate)

Silicon (Si) Mean

(substrate)

Aluminum (Al) Mean

(substrate)

Sodium (Na) Mean

(substrate)

Boron (B) Mean

(substrate)

Copper (Cu) Mean

(substrate)

wMeans within a column or row (for fertility rate) followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's Least Significance Difference test (0.05).

Means were compared for either main effects of substrate or fertility rate, or within substrate for each fertility rate depending significance of main effects or interactions from

ANOVA.

xN, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, and Si given as a percentage of nutrient in leaf tissue while all other elements are presented as parts per million (ppm). Means in black font represent treatmen

within desired nutritional ranges, means in blue font represent treatments below desired ranges, and means in red font represent treatments higher than the desired range.

zRatios of substrate show percentages (v:v:v:v) of peat, vermiculite, perlite, and alum residual on a volume basis used as a potting substrate.yFertility rates included 3.3, 6.7, and 10.0 grams per pot added as a topdress after potting and shown under each element.

37

Substrate 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 2.21 2.27 2.55 2.34 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.18 a 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.51 b 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.55 b

55:20:20:5 1.93 2.21 2.37 2.17 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.13 b 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.11 c 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.88 a

50:20:20:10 2.03 2.30 2.24 2.19 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.12 b 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.00 c 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.98 a

40:20:20:20 1.73 2.22 2.31 2.09 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 b 3.8 3.8 4.6 4.06 a 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.95 a

Mean (fertility) 1.97 b 2.25 ab 2.37 a 0.13 0.14 0.14 2.46 b 2.64 b 2.92 a 1.9 1.8 1.8

3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 0.54 0.55 0.49 0.53 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.11 a 61.5 83.5 71.9 72.3 a 59.7 61.5 65.5 62.2 a

55:20:20:5 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.52 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.09 b 61.1 82.9 77.8 73.9 a 53.2 64.3 75.6 64.4 a

50:20:20:10 0.51 0.52 0.46 0.49 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 b 59.2 64.3 79.6 67.7 a 45.1 52.8 59.5 52.5 b

40:20:20:20 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.51 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 b 41.2 43.1 50.7 44.9 b 26.6 29.6 35.9 30.7 c

Mean (fertility) 0.53 a 0.52 a 0.48 b 0.08 b 0.09 a 1.00 a 55.8 b 68.4 a 70.0 a 46.2 c 52.1 b 59.1 a

3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 43.7 50.2 54.7 49.6 b 6.2 10.2 10.3 8.9 16.4 21.5 24.3 20.7 a 5.0 4.5 3.2 4.2 b

55:20:20:5 48.1 60.1 54.7 54.3 b 6.4 7.9 9.9 8.1 20.1 22.3 23.5 22.0 a 6.2 4.5 4.5 5.1 ab

50:20:20:10 53.2 48.2 55.0 52.1 b 6.1 8.8 8.8 7.9 21.8 20.7 23.5 22.0 a 7.4 6.9 4.8 6.4 a

40:20:20:20 64.2 62.4 61.0 62.5 a 7.8 7.3 8.9 8.0 16.9 15.8 19.2 17.3 b 6.2 3.5 2.4 4.0 b

Mean (fertility) 52.3 55.2 56.4 6.6 b 8.6 a 9.5 a 18.8 b 20.1 b 22.6 a 6.2 a 4.9 ab 3.7 b

3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 6.7 10.0

60:20:20:0 (check) 6.4 7.9 8.5 7.6 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 a 16.0 12.2 10.8 13.0 b 1071.7 966.5 870.0 969.4 b

55:20:20:5 8.4 4.1 6.6 5.7 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 b 11.2 12.2 9.8 11.1 b 915.4 831.3 646.4 797.7 bc

50:20:20:10 5.7 3.2 8.5 5.8 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 c 10.1 12.0 13.2 11.8 b 827.3 681.7 638.8 715.9 c

40:20:20:20 6.6 5.0 4.4 5.3 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 c 19.7 18.3 21.9 20.0 a 1644.6 1451.3 1239.7 1145.2 a

Mean (fertility) 6.8 5.1 6.9 0.09 0.09 0.08 14.3 13.7 13.9 1114.8 a 982.7 ab 848.7 b

Table 15. Effects of alum residual amendment and three fertility rates on Ficus nutrition tissue analysis.

Nitrogen (N) Mean

(substrate)

Phosphorus (P) Mean

(substrate)

Potassium (K) Mean

(substrate)

Calcium (Ca) Mean

(substrate)

Manganese (Mn) Mean

(substrate)

Boron (B) Mean

(substrate)

Copper (Cu) Mean

(substrate)

Zinc (Zn) Mean

(substrate)


(substrate)

Magnesium (Mg) Mean

(substrate)

Sulfur (S) Mean

(substrate)

Iron (Fe) Mean

(substrate)

Sodium (Na) Mean

(substrate)

Nickel (Ni) Mean

(substrate)

Silicon (Si) Mean

(substrate)

Aluminum (Al) Mean

(substrate)

zRatios of substrate show percentages (v:v:v:v) of peat, vermiculite, perlite, and alum residual on a volume basis used as a potting substrate.yFertility rates included 3.3, 6.7, and 10.0 grams per pot added as a topdress after potting and shown under each element.xN, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, and Si given as a percentage of nutrient in leaf tissue while all other elements are presented as parts per million (ppm). Means in black font represent treatmen

within desired nutritional ranges, means in blue font represent treatments below desired ranges, and means in red font represent treatments higher than the desired range.wMeans within a column or row (for fertility rate) followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different according to Fisher's Least Significance Difference test (0.05).


ANOVA.

38

Substrate 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 1.2 1.49 1.53 1.40 0.10 0.11 0.14 a 0.12 1.06 1.08 1.33 1.16 a 0.67 0.64 0.59 0.63

30:60:5:5 1.26 1.53 1.54 1.45 0.11 0.11 0.11 b 0.11 1.17 1.09 1.14 1.14 a 0.64 0.58 0.62 0.61

30:60:0:10 1.28 1.37 1.57 1.41 0.10 0.08 0.11 b 0.09 1.15 0.86 1.06 1.02 b 0.66 0.60 0.55 0.61

25:55:0:20 1.27 1.49 1.31 1.36 0.09 0.10 0.08 b 0.09 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.97 b 0.60 0.56 0.56 0.57

Mean (fertility) 1.25 b 1.47 a 1.48 a 0.09 0.10 0.11 1.1 ab 1.0 b 1.13 a 0.64 0.59 0.58

13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 a 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.12 a 25.1 30.3 29.0 28.1 37.3 57.3 64.6 53.1

30:60:5:5 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.17 b 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 a 25.9 29.8 29.9 28.5 39.1 52.4 71.7 54.3

30:60:0:10 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.15 bc 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 ab 24.5 30.2 29.8 28.2 31.5 52.9 74.3 52.9

25:55:0:20 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 c 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 b 25.3 28.6 25.1 26.3 50.5 57.7 66.7 58.3

Mean (fertility) 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.12 25.2 b 29.7 a 28.4 a 39.6 c 55.1 b 69.3 a

13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 19.2 22.0 24.9 22.0 b 1.99 1.61 1.40 1.67 23.2 27.2 37.9 29.4 a 0.72 0.22 0.36 0.43

30:60:5:5 23.5 26.0 25.6 25.0 a 2.49 1.97 2.32 2.26 21.6 22.0 32.7 25.4 ab 0.58 0.87 0.25 0.57

30:60:0:10 20.6 25.6 27.5 24.6 a 2.49 1.63 1.97 2.03 18.9 18.9 28.9 22.3 b 0.55 0.36 0.75 0.55

25:55:0:20 25.9 27.1 25.7 26.3 a 2.01 1.87 2.44 2.11 22.4 22.1 22.5 22.3 b 0.28 0.75 0.64 0.56

Mean (fertility) 22.3 b 25.2 a 25.9 a 2.24 1.77 2.03 21.5 b 22.6 b 30.5 a 0.53 0.55 0.50

13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 1.33 1.59 1.66 1.53 0.056 0.053 0.06 0.06 a 11.5 14.1 14.6 13.4 655.2 680.4 827.4 721.0 a

30:60:5:5 2.06 3.32 1.26 2.21 0.036 0.036 0.046 0.04 b 14.9 19.7 17.3 17.3 648.8 642.9 734.6 675.4 a

30:60:0:10 1.73 1.73 4.49 2.64 0.026 0.026 0.03 0.03 c 15.1 12.6 14.5 14.1 634.2 489.1 533.2 552.1 b

25:55:0:20 2.65 0.67 1.76 1.71 0.020 0.020 0.023 0.02 d 19.0 14.6 14.6 16.1 498.8 534.1 522.1 518.3 b

Mean (fertility) 1.94 1.83 2.29 0.035 b 0.034 b 0.041 a 15.1 15.3 15.3 609.2 ab 586.6 b 654.3 a

Table 16. Effects of alum residual amendment and three fertility rates on Ligustrum nutrition tissue analysis.

Nitrogen (N) Mean

(substrate)

Phosphorus (P) Mean

(substrate)

Potassium (K) Mean

(substrate)

Calcium (Ca) Mean

(substrate)

Magnesium (Mg) Mean

(substrate)

Sulfur (S) Mean

(substrate)

Iron (Fe) Mean

(substrate)

Manganese (Mn) Mean

(substrate)


(substrate)

Nickel (Ni) Mean

(substrate)

Silicon (Si) Mean

(substrate)

Aluminum (Al) Mean

(substrate)

Sodium (Na) Mean

(substrate)

Boron (B) Mean

(substrate)

Copper (Cu) Mean

(substrate)

Zinc (Zn) Mean

(substrate)

zRatios of substrate show percentages (v:v:v:v) of peat, pinebark, sand, and alum residual on a volume basis used as a potting substrate.yFertility rates included 13.3, 26.7, and 40.0 grams per pot added as a topdress after potting and shown under each element.xN, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, and Si given as a percentage of nutrient in leaf tissue while all other elements are presented as parts per million (ppm). Means in black font represent treatmen



ANOVA.

39

Substrate 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 1.34 1.76 2.49 a 1.86 0.14 0.16 0.23 0.17 a 1.07 1.05 1.17 1.1 1.12 0.99 0.94 1.02 a

30:60:5:5 1.76 1.99 2.26 a 2.01 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.12 b 1.38 1.13 1.29 1.3 0.72 0.84 0.79 0.79 b

30:60:0:10 1.54 1.86 1.72 b 1.71 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.07 c 1.05 1.23 0.96 1.1 0.81 0.77 0.73 0.77 b

25:55:0:20 1.64 1.59 1.68 b 1.64 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 c 1.33 0.93 1.00 1.1 0.76 0.75 0.80 0.77 b

Mean (fertility) 1.57 1.80 2.04 0.09 0.11 0.12 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.85 0.84 0.82

13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.35 a 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.14 ab 39.5 34.8 42.6 39.0 a 12.6 15.0 19.5 15.7 a

30:60:5:5 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.27 b 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.15 a 31.6 32.5 37.3 33.8 b 11.1 15.7 17.2 14.6 ab

30:60:0:10 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 b 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.13 bc 31.9 33.7 30.0 31.9 b 12.4 13.3 8.9 11.7 bc

25:55:0:20 0.24 0.20 0.26 0.24 b 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 c 35.0 32.8 35.4 34.4 ab 11.7 10.2 12.5 11.5 c

Mean (fertility) 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.12 b 0.14 a 0.15 a 34.5 33.4 36.3 11.9 13.6 14.5

13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 59.3 56.2 50.5 55.3 2.8 2.2 3.4 2.8 a 27.0 23.9 32.4 27.8 a 0.54 0.69 0.42 0.55

30:60:5:5 61.6 65.7 66.6 64.6 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.8 a 22.1 25.5 28.3 25.3 a 0.14 0.28 0.45 0.29

30:60:0:10 57.2 61.4 52.3 56.9 1.6 1.8 2.2 1.9 b 17.8 19.8 15.9 17.8 b 0.06 0.31 0.29 0.22

25:55:0:20 61.3 59.7 60.9 60.7 1.7 1.7 2.4 1.9 b 15.5 16.8 17.1 16.5 b 0.21 0.09 0.31 0.21

Mean (fertility) 59.8 60.7 57.6 2.2 2.2 2.8 20.6 21.5 23.5 0.24 0.34 0.37

13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 40.0

30:60:10:0 (check) 2.39 4.35 0.93 2.55 0.020 0.030 0.030 0.027 a 28.2 21.5 28.0 25.9 b 1327.2 1297.5 1053.1 1225.9

30:60:5:5 3.32 4.02 1.79 3.04 0.023 0.027 0.020 0.023 a 30.6 31.6 43.5 35.2 a 1150.2 1169.1 1224.7 1181.3

30:60:0:10 0.98 2.18 2.93 2.03 0.013 0.020 0.016 0.018 b 25.6 27.5 27.6 29.9 b 1115.2 1305.4 1700.0 1373.5

25:55:0:20 2.61 2.21 2.45 2.42 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.017 b 30.4 26.9 34.1 30.5 ab 1577.3 1277.2 1707.0 1520.5

Mean (fertility) 2.32 3.19 2.02 0.018 b 0.023 a 0.021 ab 28.7 ab 26.9 b 33.3 a 1292.5 1262.3 1421.2

Mean

(substrate)

Nickel (Ni) Mean

(substrate)

Silicon (Si) Mean

(substrate)

Aluminum (Al) Mean

(substrate)

Manganese (Mn) Mean

(substrate)

Boron (B) Mean

(substrate)

Copper (Cu) Mean

(substrate)

Zinc (Zn) Mean

(substrate)


(substrate)

Magnesium (Mg)

yFertility rates included 13.3, 26.7, and 40.0 grams per pot added as a topdress after potting and shown under each element.xN, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, and Si given as a percentage of nutrient in leaf tissue while all other elements are presented as parts per million (ppm). Means in black font represent treatmen



ANOVA.

zRatios of substrate show percentages (v:v:v:v) of peat, pinebark, sand, and alum residual on a volume basis used as a potting substrate.

Sodium (Na) Mean

(substrate)

Mean

(substrate)

Sulfur (S) Mean

(substrate)

Iron (Fe) Mean

(substrate)

Table 17. Effects of alum residual amendment and three fertility rates on Viburnum nutrition tissue analysis.

Nitrogen (N) Mean

(substrate)

Phosphorus (P) Mean

(substrate)

Potassium (K) Mean

(substrate)

Calcium (Ca)

40

Summary of AR as a container substrate amendment. Overall, AR has potential as a container substrate amendment as it caused no effect on growth of Ficus, limited to no significant meaningful effect on growth or marketability of dieffenbachia or ligustrum, and no effect on viburnum when used at only 5%. It should be noted however that slight growth decreases were observed in all but the ficus, so production times may be longer with use of AR under some circumstances. Otherwise, AR had limited or not detrimental effect on substrate parameters such as nutritional content and physical properties were within recommended ranges at ratios of up to 20%. An important consideration is that if there is not a significant cost savings, growers would be unlikely to change current practices for an alternative amendment that did not improve results. For industry use and buy-in, AR would have to be available to growers for use at a price point that would make it worth their time testing and modifying current practices. In its current form (freshly harvested), AR would not be useful, or have limited use in a nursery production scenario, but growers could process it for use in regular potting activities with minimal investment of time or equipment. The major advantage of AR would be its cost (without considering delivery) in comparison with Canadian peat, but the disadvantage would be its unknown effects on plant species not evaluated here. We would recommend growers evaluate use of AR in their operations at ratios of approximately 10% and testing on a limited number of plants before widespread implementation. Based on results from these trials, it is likely that AR could be implemented in ornamental production as either a low-cost alternative to peat moss for either greenhouse or outdoor container-grown ornamentals, or used instead of sand in pine bark mixes to increase pot weight, water holding capacity, and prevent blow over as crops mature.

CONCLUSIONS Based on results of this trial, AR would not be useful as a weed management tool when added to containers as a topdress material. Spurge growth did decrease when AR was topdressed, but crabgrass growth increased, indicated that the benefit would likely be species specific and likely not useful on a commercial scale when considering added cost of amendment. Germination of all weeds evaluated did not consistently decrease when AR was evaluated as a topdress, again showing that weeds would likely be able to grow in AR after it is processed in a manner to be useful for a nursery operation. While AR was not found to be useful as a container topdress, it could potentially increase duration of preemergence herbicides as is currently being evaluated. If AR was found to increase herbicide duration of control, then it may have some use as a topdress material. As AR was found to be safe to ornamentals as a topdress, this could potentially be implemented. We will continue this assessment, which was in addition to agreed upon objectives and provide Lake County with results if interested. Where we see a potential use of AR is as a substrate amendment. Based on our findings, AR had no detrimental influence on growth or marketability of ficus on any evaluation date. Additionally, ligustrum marketability were excellent or close to excellent (5.0) throughout the trial, despite a slight decrease in growth observed on later evaluation dates. While a potential growth may be observed, the added benefit of a low cost amendment (AR) could potentially compensate a slight increase in production time for nursery growers. Similar to results with ligustrum, dieffenbachia growth decreases were observed on later evaluation dates but marketability was rated as high throughout and no visible differences in growth were observable. For viburnum, which generally showed the highest sensitivity to AR, no growth differences were observed or detected when AR was added at up to 5% for most data collected. Based on these findings, there is potential for finding use of AR as a container substrate amendment, but more research would be needed or grower testing would be needed to determine proper ratios of AR with different container substrates and fertility regimes. No clear or consistent nutritional trends were

41

observed following tissue analysis, thus, it is likely the only modification to current practices that would be needed is to substitute AR for peat, sand, or other amendments added to substrates to increase water holding capacity and container weight. Similar to most work with ornamentals, there will not be a “one size fits all” answer. Multiple species would need to be evaluated in small-scale research or on-farm trials in order to determine what production variables need to be adjusted to alleviate any detrimental growth increases. As AR would be a readily available material in central Florida and had little to no negative effects on growth of greenhouse species, it could potentially be used in production of foliage crops as a substitute for expensive Canadian peat moss, which is commonly used now. It may also have use with substrates used for outdoor container production as either a peat substitute or added to other pine bark mixes as a potential tool to increase water-holding capacity. For those wishing to incorporate the use of AR as a amendment, we would recommend starting with a ~10% concentration and then screening multiple ornamental species over a growing season to determine if certain species in a growers product line are more sensitive to AR than the species evaluated here.

LITERATURE CITED

Bryson, G.M., H.A. Mills, D.N. Sasseville, J.B. Jones, and A.V. Barker. 2014. Plant analysis handbook III. Micro-Macro Publishing. Athens, Ga. 571 p. Fageria, V.D. 2001. Nutrient interactions in crop plants. J. Plant Nutrition. 24:1269-1290. Haugland, E. and L.O. Brandsaeter. 1996. Experiments on bioassay sensitivity in the study of allelopathy. J. Chem. Ecol. 22:1845-1859. Senseman, S.A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook, 9th ed. Weed Sci. Soc. of Amer., Lawrence, KS. Van Wychen, L. 2016. 2015 Baseline survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America. 23 Feb. 2018. <http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-Weed-Survey_Baseline.xlsx>.

LCWA-NURF \ TECHNICAL MEMO -: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ALUM SLUDGE (JULY 9, 2020) PAGE 1

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH & DESIGN, INC.

Engineering • Science • Chemistry • Research

3419 Trentwood Blvd. • Suite 102 • Belle Isle (Orlando), FL 32812-4864

Telephone: 407-855-9465 • Fax: 407-826-0419

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Jason Danaher – Lake County Water Authority

FROM: Harvey H. Harper, III, Ph.D., P.E. - President

RE: Chemical Analysis of Alum Sludge Collected at the Lake County NuRF Facility

DATE: July 9, 2020

Introduction

As part of our proposed work efforts for the Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF) evaluation, ERD was to conduct laboratory analyses on alum floc residual samples collected from the NuRF site. The collected samples were to be evaluated for chemical characteristics and compared with Clean Soil Criteria outlined in Chapter 62-777 FAC to evaluate potential disposal options. Floc samples were also to be evaluated using the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Potential (TCLP) procedure to evaluate the potential for leaching of constituents contained within the alum floc. This Technical Memorandum summarizes the results of these analyses.

Methods

Samples of alum floc were collected by ERD from the NuRF facility during February 2020. The initial floc sample was collected directly from the centrifuge discharge to represent newly generated fresh floc material. The second sample was collected from the northernmost portion of the floc storage area to represent aged floc which had been stored for several years. A third floc sample was generated by combining equal parts of the fresh and aged floc samples to serve as a quality control check sample which should have characteristics mid-way between the new and old residual samples

The three sludge residual samples were returned to the ERD Laboratory and allowed to dry by placing the samples in the sun during business hours. Drying of the collected samples required approximately 4-6 weeks to complete. None of the samples were dried inside a laboratory oven for fear that the elevated temperature might alter the chemical characteristics of the residuals. Sub-samples of each of the dried sludge samples were placed into clean polyethylene containers and transported to SGS Accutest Laboratories for analysis of Clean Soil Criteria outlined in Chapter 62-777 FAC. Additional sub-samples of the three sludge samples were used to conduct Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Potential (TCLP) testing to evaluate the stability of constituents bound within the residuals. The TCLP testing protocol was conducted in the ERD Laboratory and includes incubation and agitation of the samples for a period of 18 hours at a pH of 4.9. At the completion of the extraction period, the samples were allowed to settle, and the supernatant was siphoned off for analysis of Class III water quality parameters outlined in Chapter 62-302 FAC. The analyses for Class III water quality parameters were also conducted by SGS Accutest Laboratories.

Attachment D


Results

A copy of the Technical Report provided by SGS Accutest for the residual and TCLP samples is given in Attachment 1. Information contained in this report was summarized by ERD into a tabular format, with applicable regulatory criteria for evaluated parameters provided for reference purposes. A summary of chemical characteristics of alum sludge residual collected at the NuRF facility is given in Attachment 2. This table provides a summary of the measured characteristics for the fresh and aged floc samples, as well as the mixed sample generated by combining equal amounts of old and new floc. Analyses were conducted by SGS Accutest for volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, pesticides, herbicides, and metals. The applicable Clean Soil Criteria for direct exposure in residential areas, based upon information contained in Chapter 62-777 FAC, is provided in the final column of each table. The residential Clean Soil Criteria reflect the most stringent criteria for soil within the State of Florida. The maximum contaminant values provided in Chapter 62-777 FAC are given in units of mg/kg. Since the SGS Accutest data is given in

units of g/kg, the Clean Soil Criteria values were multiplied by 1000 to have consistent units of

g/kg. Parameters which had a “hit”, meaning a measurable quantity of a given constituent above the minimum detection limit (MDL), are highlighted in yellow to assist in evaluating the data. Overall, “hits” were observed for less than 10% of the measured compounds. The methods of analysis used to measure the various compounds in the alum sludge provide concentrations for a wide variety of compounds, not all of which have applicable Clean Soil Criteria. However, all measured compounds are included in the table contained in Attachment 2 for reference purposes. Overall, the dried alum sludge residual easily met the applicable Clean Soil Criteria for each of the 231 parameters measured on the sludge residual. In most cases, the measured soil concentrations are multiple orders of magnitude less than the allowable Clean Soil Criteria. The residual analyses indicate that alum sludge generated at the NuRF facility easily meets criteria for use as fill material on residential sites with direct human exposure. For parameters where “hits” were observed, measured concentrations for the old floc material were lower than values in the new floc. As discussed previously, the mixed sample consisted of equal parts of new and old alum sludge. As a result, the measured constituents in this sample should be mid-way between the new and old alum characteristics. This sample was added as a control to ensure that the measured results reflected a mid-point value. In virtually all cases, the measured values for the mixed residual sample lie between measured values for the new and old samples, which provide a further check of the accuracy of the measurements conducted on the new and old samples. The characteristics of the alum residual provided in Attachment 2 are very similar to prior analyses of alum sludge conducted by ERD on samples collected from lakes that had received inputs of alum treated stormwater which also indicated that the sludge easily met the Clean Soil Criteria for residential use.


Results of Leachate Testing

A tabular summary of TCLP testing conducted on alum sludge collected at the NuRF facility is given in Attachment 3. During this test, the soil samples are maintained at a pH of 4.9 and agitated for 18 hours to evaluate potential release of contaminants from the alum sludge if the residual was placed in contact with water and low pH soils, such as those which may occur in a wetland system. The supernatant generated during the leachate testing protocol was evaluated for Class III criteria outlined in Chapter 302.530 FS to examine if material leaching from the soil could potentially result in a Class III water quality violation. The results of the TCLP testing are similar to the results previously discussed for overall residual characteristics. Measured concentrations of volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, and metals measured on the supernatant samples easily met the Class III criteria for all volatile and semi-volatile organics outlined in Chapter 302.530 FS. In some cases, the minimum detection limit (MDL) for a parameter, listed as a non-detect and followed by the letter “U” in Attachment 3, exceeds the applicable Class III criteria. However, in these instances, FDEP assumes that the parameter has met the Class III criteria if the measured value is less than the MDL for the parameter, even if the MDL is greater than the Class III criteria. The TCLP testing for metals also met the applicable Class III criteria for all metals with the exception of selenium. The measured selenium concentration on the aged residual sample was less than the applicable MDL, while the new and mixed residual samples exhibited values between the MDL and PQL (Practical Quantification Limit) for the given parameter, indicating that the contaminant was present but there is uncertainty concerning the actual value. Therefore, the only metal which could potentially exceed the applicable Class III criteria is selenium, although the measured values are near the lower limit of detection for the test. The TCLP testing protocol represents a worst-case scenario where the solid samples are agitated at a low pH value. Since agitation of soils does not occur following use as a fill material, and soil pH values in Florida are generally in excess of 4.9, it remains uncertain how selenium would react when alum sludge was used as a fill material. Further testing regarding selenium should be conducted under conditions representative of the proposed use prior to use of the residual as fill material. For the few compounds which exhibited “hits”, the measured concentrations of the leached compounds decreased as the age of the floc increased. This behavior is consistent with the general theory that alum floc becomes more stable and inert with age. Attachments 1. Laboratory Report from SGS Accutest Labs 2. Chemical Characteristics of Alum Residual 3. Results of TCLP Testing


ATTACHMENT 1

LABORATORY REPORT FROM SGS ACCUTEST LABS

07/06/20

Technical Report for

Environmental Research & Design

NURF Alum Residual Testing

SGS Job Number: FA76166

Sampling Date: 06/18/20

Report to:

Environmental Research & Design3419 Trentwood Blvd Suite 102Orlando, FL [email protected]; [email protected]

ATTN: Cassandra Pelto

Total number of pages in report:

Certifications: FL(E83510), LA(03051), KS(E-10327), IL(200063), NC(573), NJ(FL002), NY(12022), SC(96038001)

DoD ELAP(ANAB L2229), AZ(AZ0806), CA(2937), TX(T104704404), PA(68-03573), VA(460177),

AK, AR, IA, KY, MA, MS, ND, NH, NV, OK, OR, UT, WA, WV

This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of SGS.

Test results relate only to samples analyzed.

SGS North America Inc. • 4405 Vineland Road • Suite C-15 • Orlando, FL 32811 • tel: 407-425-6700 • fax: 407-425-0707

Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements

of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.

Client Service contact: Jean Dent-Smith 407-425-6700

Caitlin Brice, M.S.General Manager

Orlando, FL 07/06/20

e-Hardcopy 2.0Automated Report

60

SGS is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to this document.Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited.Review standard terms at: http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions

The results set forth herein are provided by SGS North America Inc.

Please share your ideas abouthow we can serve you better at:[email protected]

1 of 60

FA76166

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Customer care improvement idea (report FA76166)

Table of Contents-1-

Sections:

Section 1: Sample Summary ................................................................................................... 3Section 2: Summary of Hits .................................................................................................... 4Section 3: Sample Results ........................................................................................................ 7

3.1: FA76166-1: ERD NURF NEW .................................................................................... 83.2: FA76166-2: ERD NURF MIXED ................................................................................ 133.3: FA76166-3: ERD NURF OLD ..................................................................................... 183.4: FA76166-4: ERD NURF NEW .................................................................................... 233.5: FA76166-5: ERD NURF MIXED ................................................................................ 343.6: FA76166-6: ERD NURF OLD ..................................................................................... 45

Section 4: Misc. Forms ............................................................................................................ 564.1: Certification Exceptions ................................................................................................ 574.2: Chain of Custody ........................................................................................................... 58

12

34

2 of 60

FA76166

SGS North America Inc.

Sample Summary

Environmental Research & DesignJob No: FA76166


Sample Collected Matrix Client Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID

FA76166-1 06/18/20 15:00 CHCR 06/19/20 AQ Water ERD NURF NEW

FA76166-2 06/18/20 15:30 CHCR 06/19/20 AQ Water ERD NURF MIXED

FA76166-3 06/18/20 15:15 CHCR 06/19/20 AQ Water ERD NURF OLD

FA76166-4 06/18/20 15:00 CHCR 06/19/20 SO Soil ERD NURF NEW

FA76166-5 06/18/20 15:30 CHCR 06/19/20 SO Soil ERD NURF MIXED

FA76166-6 06/18/20 15:15 CHCR 06/19/20 SO Soil ERD NURF OLD

Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page.

3 of 60

FA76166

1

Summary of Hits Page 1 of 3 Job Number: FA76166Account: Environmental Research & DesignProject: NURF Alum Residual TestingCollected: 06/18/20

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Result/Analyte Qual PQL MDL Units Method

FA76166-1 ERD NURF NEW

2-Butanone (MEK) 0.0678 0.050 0.020 mg/l SW846 8260BBarium 0.73 I 2.0 0.050 mg/l SW846 6010CChromium 0.012 I 0.10 0.010 mg/l SW846 6010CSelenium 0.054 I 0.10 0.029 mg/l SW846 6010C

FA76166-2 ERD NURF MIXED

2-Butanone (MEK) 0.0394 I 0.050 0.020 mg/l SW846 8260BBarium 0.19 I 2.0 0.050 mg/l SW846 6010CSelenium 0.031 I 0.10 0.029 mg/l SW846 6010C

FA76166-3 ERD NURF OLD

Barium 0.28 I 2.0 0.050 mg/l SW846 6010C

FA76166-4 ERD NURF NEW

Acetone a 8030 L 420 210 ug/kg SW846 8260B2-Butanone (MEK) 1260 53 15 ug/kg SW846 8260BCarbon Disulfide 9.9 I 11 2.1 ug/kg SW846 8260B2-Hexanone 60.0 53 16 ug/kg SW846 8260BIsobutyl Alcohol 106 I 420 100 ug/kg SW846 8260B4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 76.6 53 16 ug/kg SW846 8260BXylene (total) 6.4 I 32 4.5 ug/kg SW846 8260BPhenol 200 I 210 21 ug/kg SW846 8270DAcetophenone 94.2 I 210 21 ug/kg SW846 8270DBenzyl Alcohol 255 210 21 ug/kg SW846 8270DButyl benzyl phthalate 64.6 I 210 42 ug/kg SW846 8270DDiethyl Phthalate 267 I 420 42 ug/kg SW846 8270Dgamma-BHC (Lindane) b 10.3 I 11 3.2 ug/kg SW846 8081B4,4'-DDD b 4.8 I 21 2.9 ug/kg SW846 8081B4,4'-DDE b 37.8 21 3.8 ug/kg SW846 8081BArsenic 7.5 5.2 1.0 mg/kg SW846 6010CBarium 32.7 10 0.052 mg/kg SW846 6010CBeryllium 0.21 I 0.26 0.026 mg/kg SW846 6010CChromium 81.1 5.2 0.52 mg/kg SW846 6010CCobalt 0.34 I 2.6 0.026 mg/kg SW846 6010CCopper 6.8 I 13 0.52 mg/kg SW846 6010CLead 13.3 10 0.52 mg/kg SW846 6010CMercury 0.030 I 0.048 0.0048 mg/kg SW846 7471BNickel 1.9 I 21 0.26 mg/kg SW846 6010CSilver 0.083 I 0.52 0.043 mg/kg SW846 6010CThallium 0.87 I 5.2 0.57 mg/kg SW846 6010C

4 of 60

FA76166

2



Tin 1.5 I 2.6 0.047 mg/kg SW846 6010CVanadium 39.8 2.6 0.026 mg/kg SW846 6010CZinc 12.8 10 1.6 mg/kg SW846 6010C

FA76166-5 ERD NURF MIXED

Acetone a 4430 L 290 140 ug/kg SW846 8260B2-Butanone (MEK) 559 36 10 ug/kg SW846 8260BCarbon Disulfide 5.4 I 7.1 1.4 ug/kg SW846 8260B2-Hexanone 24.6 I 36 11 ug/kg SW846 8260B4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 37.2 36 11 ug/kg SW846 8260BXylene (total) 3.5 I 21 3.0 ug/kg SW846 8260BPhenol 110 I 200 20 ug/kg SW846 8270DAcetophenone 65.3 I 200 20 ug/kg SW846 8270DBenzyl Alcohol 195 I 200 20 ug/kg SW846 8270Dgamma-BHC (Lindane) c 6.0 2.0 0.59 ug/kg SW846 8081B4,4'-DDE c 30.0 3.9 0.71 ug/kg SW846 8081BAntimony d 0.55 I 2.1 0.14 mg/kg SW846 6010CArsenic d 2.6 1.1 0.21 mg/kg SW846 6010CBarium 14.0 11 0.053 mg/kg SW846 6010CBeryllium 0.12 I 0.27 0.027 mg/kg SW846 6010CChromium d 31.7 1.1 0.11 mg/kg SW846 6010CCobalt 0.18 I 2.7 0.027 mg/kg SW846 6010CCopper d 2.1 I 2.7 0.11 mg/kg SW846 6010CMercury 0.029 I 0.044 0.0044 mg/kg SW846 7471BNickel d 0.75 I 4.3 0.053 mg/kg SW846 6010CSelenium d 1.3 I 2.1 0.26 mg/kg SW846 6010CSilver 0.091 I 0.53 0.044 mg/kg SW846 6010CTin 1.1 I 2.7 0.048 mg/kg SW846 6010CVanadium 16.9 2.7 0.027 mg/kg SW846 6010CZinc d 5.1 2.1 0.32 mg/kg SW846 6010C

FA76166-6 ERD NURF OLD

Acetone e 2020 L 260 130 ug/kg SW846 8260BBenzene f 1.9 I 6.5 1.6 ug/kg SW846 8260B2-Butanone (MEK) g 112 31 9.1 ug/kg SW846 8260BCarbon Disulfide g 2.6 I 6.2 1.2 ug/kg SW846 8260B4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) g 15.3 I 31 9.4 ug/kg SW846 8260BToluene f 18.3 I 26 13 ug/kg SW846 8260BPhenol 26.6 I 180 18 ug/kg SW846 8270DBenzyl Alcohol 93.1 I 180 18 ug/kg SW846 8270Dgamma-BHC (Lindane) c 1.9 1.8 0.54 ug/kg SW846 8081B4,4'-DDE c 9.1 3.6 0.66 ug/kg SW846 8081BAntimony d 0.59 I 2.0 0.13 mg/kg SW846 6010C

5 of 60

FA76166

2



Arsenic d 2.1 1.0 0.20 mg/kg SW846 6010CBarium 12.2 10 0.050 mg/kg SW846 6010CBeryllium 0.11 I 0.25 0.025 mg/kg SW846 6010CChromium d 26.3 1.0 0.10 mg/kg SW846 6010CCobalt 0.16 I 2.5 0.025 mg/kg SW846 6010CCopper d 1.6 I 2.5 0.10 mg/kg SW846 6010CLead d 0.45 I 2.0 0.10 mg/kg SW846 6010CMercury 0.020 I 0.038 0.0038 mg/kg SW846 7471BNickel d 0.70 I 4.0 0.050 mg/kg SW846 6010CSelenium d 0.64 I 2.0 0.24 mg/kg SW846 6010CTin 1.0 I 2.5 0.045 mg/kg SW846 6010CVanadium 14.1 2.5 0.025 mg/kg SW846 6010CZinc d 4.1 2.0 0.30 mg/kg SW846 6010C

(a) Compound was below calibration range in methanol extract. Associated CCV outside of control limits high.(b) All hits confirmed by dual column analysis. Dilution required due to matrix interference.(c) All hits confirmed by dual column analysis.(d) Elevated reporting limit(s) due to matrix interference.(e) Compound was below calibration range in methanol extract.(f) Results from different vials are not consistent; higher results were reported.(g) Internal standard response(s) outside method criteria; associated analyte(s) ND.

6 of 60

FA76166

2


Sample Results

Report of Analysis

Orlando, FLSection 3

7 of 60

FA76166

3


Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1

Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-1 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B SW846 1311 Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 5E23549.D 10 06/24/20 13:53 SO 06/22/20 10:15 OP80779 V5E1076Run #2 P72262.D 10 06/25/20 11:58 SO 06/22/20 10:15 OP80779 VP2861

Purge VolumeRun #1 5.0 mlRun #2 5.0 ml

VOA TCLP List TCLP Leachate method SW846 1311

CAS No. Compound Result HW# MCL PQL MDL Units Q

71-43-2 Benzene 0.0031 U D018 0.50 0.010 0.0031 mg/l78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 0.0678 a D035 200 0.050 0.020 mg/l56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0036 U D019 0.50 0.010 0.0036 mg/l108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 0.0020 U D021 100 0.010 0.0020 mg/l67-66-3 Chloroform 0.0030 U D022 6.0 0.010 0.0030 mg/l106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0026 U D027 7.5 0.010 0.0026 mg/l107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0031 U D028 0.50 0.010 0.0031 mg/l75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.0032 U D029 0.70 0.010 0.0032 mg/l127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 0.0022 U D039 0.70 0.010 0.0022 mg/l79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 0.0035 U D040 0.50 0.010 0.0035 mg/l75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 0.0041 U D043 0.20 0.010 0.0041 mg/l

CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits

1868-53-7 Dibromofluoromethane 101% 101% 83-118%17060-07-0 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 94% 109% 79-125%2037-26-5 Toluene-D8 95% 101% 85-112%460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 97% 103% 83-118%

(a) Result is from Run# 2

U = Not detected MDL = Method Detection Limit I = Result >= MDL but < PQL J = Estimated valueMCL = Maximum Contamination Level (40 CFR 261 7/1/11) V = Indicates analyte found in associated method blankL = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound

8 of 60

FA76166

33.1



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-1 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 6F06317.D 1 06/27/20 00:49 MV 06/26/20 10:00 OP80869 S6F243Run #2

Initial Volume Final VolumeRun #1 100 ml 1.0 mlRun #2

ABN TCLP List TCLP Leachate method SW846 1311


95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 0.0056 U D023 200 0.050 0.0056 mg/l3&4-Methylphenol 0.0098 U D024 200 0.050 0.0098 mg/l

87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol a 0.050 U D037 100 0.25 0.050 mg/l95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0.0074 U D041 400 0.050 0.0074 mg/l88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.0075 U D042 2.0 0.050 0.0075 mg/l106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0050 U D027 7.5 0.050 0.0050 mg/l121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.0081 U D030 0.13 0.050 0.0081 mg/l118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 0.0069 U D032 0.13 0.050 0.0069 mg/l87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.0050 U D033 0.50 0.050 0.0050 mg/l67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 0.016 U D034 3.0 0.050 0.016 mg/l98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 0.0093 U D036 2.0 0.050 0.0093 mg/l110-86-1 Pyridine 0.020 U D038 5.0 0.10 0.020 mg/l


367-12-4 2-Fluorophenol 47% 14-67%4165-62-2 Phenol-d5 35% 10-50%118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 52% 33-118%4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 58% 42-108%321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl 74% 40-106%1718-51-0 Terphenyl-d14 68% 39-121%

(a) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.


9 of 60

FA76166

33.1



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-1 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8151A SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 CC068711.D 1 06/26/20 16:43 JA 06/25/20 13:30 OP80846 GCC1678Run #2

Initial Volume Final VolumeRun #1 10.0 ml 5.0 mlRun #2

Herbicide TCLP List TCLP Leachate method SW846 1311


94-75-7 2,4-D 0.017 U D016 10 0.050 0.017 mg/l93-72-1 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.0013 U D017 1.0 0.0050 0.0013 mg/l


19719-28-9 2,4-DCAA 73% 39-135%


10 of 60

FA76166

33.1



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-1 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8081B SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 ST148080.D 1 06/26/20 19:29 WH 06/26/20 13:30 OP80871 GST3555Run #2


Pesticide TCLP List TCLP Leachate method SW846 1311


58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) a 0.000022 U D013 0.40 0.00010 0.000022 mg/l12789-03-6 Chlordane 0.00038 U D020 0.030 0.0010 0.00038 mg/l72-20-8 Endrin b 0.000021 U D012 0.020 0.00020 0.000021 mg/l76-44-8 Heptachlor c 0.000026 U D031 0.0080 0.00010 0.000026 mg/l1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide c 0.000020 U D031 0.0080 0.00010 0.000020 mg/l72-43-5 Methoxychlor b 0.000050 U D014 10 0.00020 0.000050 mg/l8001-35-2 Toxaphene 0.0021 U D015 0.50 0.0050 0.0021 mg/l


877-09-8 Tetrachloro-m-xylene 126% 42-127%2051-24-3 Decachlorobiphenyl 98% 27-127%

(a) Associated CCV outside of control limits high, sample was ND.(b) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.(c) Associated ICV and CCV outside control limits high, however sample ND.


11 of 60

FA76166

33.1



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-1 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20

Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

Metals Analysis, TCLP Leachate SW846 1311

Analyte Result HW# MCL PQL MDL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method

Arsenic 0.013 U D004 5.0 0.10 0.013 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Barium 0.73 I D005 100 2.0 0.050 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Cadmium 0.0020 U D006 1.0 0.050 0.0020 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Chromium 0.012 I D007 5.0 0.10 0.010 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Lead 0.011 U D008 5.0 0.050 0.011 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Mercury 0.00050 U D009 0.20 0.0050 0.00050 mg/l 1 06/25/20 06/25/20 JC SW846 7470A 1

Selenium 0.054 I D010 1.0 0.10 0.029 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Silver 0.0070 U D011 5.0 0.10 0.0070 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

(1) Instrument QC Batch: MA16856(2) Instrument QC Batch: MA16859(3) Prep QC Batch: MP37444(4) Prep QC Batch: MP37456

PQL = Practical Quantitation Limit MDL = Method Detection Limit U = Indicates a result < MDLMCL = Maximum Contamination Level (40 CFR 261 7/1/11) I = Indicates a result >= MDL but < PQL

12 of 60

FA76166

33.1



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-2 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B SW846 1311 Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing





71-43-2 Benzene 0.0031 U D018 0.50 0.010 0.0031 mg/l78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 0.0394 a D035 200 0.050 0.020 mg/l I56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0036 U D019 0.50 0.010 0.0036 mg/l108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 0.0020 U D021 100 0.010 0.0020 mg/l67-66-3 Chloroform 0.0030 U D022 6.0 0.010 0.0030 mg/l106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0026 U D027 7.5 0.010 0.0026 mg/l107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0031 U D028 0.50 0.010 0.0031 mg/l75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.0032 U D029 0.70 0.010 0.0032 mg/l127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 0.0022 U D039 0.70 0.010 0.0022 mg/l79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 0.0035 U D040 0.50 0.010 0.0035 mg/l75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 0.0041 U D043 0.20 0.010 0.0041 mg/l





13 of 60

FA76166

33.2



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-2 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing











14 of 60

FA76166

33.2



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-2 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8151A SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing







19719-28-9 2,4-DCAA 60% 39-135%


15 of 60

FA76166

33.2



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-2 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8081B SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing










16 of 60

FA76166

33.2



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-2 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20







Chromium 0.010 U D007 5.0 0.10 0.010 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Lead 0.011 U D008 5.0 0.050 0.011 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2


Selenium 0.031 I D010 1.0 0.10 0.029 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2




17 of 60

FA76166

33.2



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-3 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B SW846 1311 Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing





71-43-2 Benzene 0.0031 U D018 0.50 0.010 0.0031 mg/l78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 0.020 U a D035 200 0.050 0.020 mg/l56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0036 U D019 0.50 0.010 0.0036 mg/l108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 0.0020 U D021 100 0.010 0.0020 mg/l67-66-3 Chloroform 0.0030 U D022 6.0 0.010 0.0030 mg/l106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0026 U D027 7.5 0.010 0.0026 mg/l107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0031 U D028 0.50 0.010 0.0031 mg/l75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.0032 U D029 0.70 0.010 0.0032 mg/l127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 0.0022 U D039 0.70 0.010 0.0022 mg/l79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 0.0035 U D040 0.50 0.010 0.0035 mg/l75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 0.0041 U D043 0.20 0.010 0.0041 mg/l





18 of 60

FA76166

33.3



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-3 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing











19 of 60

FA76166

33.3



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-3 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8151A SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing







19719-28-9 2,4-DCAA 61% 39-135%


20 of 60

FA76166

33.3



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-3 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8081B SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing










21 of 60

FA76166

33.3



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-3 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: AQ - Water Date Received: 06/19/20







Chromium 0.010 U D007 5.0 0.10 0.010 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2

Lead 0.011 U D008 5.0 0.050 0.011 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2


Selenium 0.029 U D010 1.0 0.10 0.029 mg/l 1 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 2




22 of 60

FA76166

33.3



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 F0096243.D 1 06/23/20 16:36 SP n/a n/a VF3385Run #2 F0096222.D 1 06/22/20 21:18 SP n/a n/a VF3384

Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol AliquotRun #1 3.01 g 5.0 mlRun #2 2.86 g 5.0 ml 20.0 ul

VOA Appendix IX List

CAS No. Compound Result PQL MDL Units Q

67-64-1 Acetone a 8030 420 210 ug/kg L75-05-8 Acetonitrile 38 U 110 38 ug/kg107-02-8 Acrolein b 25 U 53 25 ug/kg107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 23 U 53 23 ug/kg107-05-1 Allyl chloride c 11 U 53 11 ug/kg71-43-2 Benzene 2.6 U 11 2.6 ug/kg75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg75-25-2 Bromoform 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 1260 53 15 ug/kg75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 9.9 11 2.1 ug/kg I56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 2.2 U 11 2.2 ug/kg108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg75-00-3 Chloroethane 4.2 U 11 4.2 ug/kg67-66-3 Chloroform 2.8 U 11 2.8 ug/kg126-99-8 Chloroprene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 4.1 U 11 4.1 ug/kg106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 4.2 U 11 4.2 ug/kg110-57-6 trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene 4.2 U 21 4.2 ug/kg75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 3.8 U 11 3.8 ug/kg107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane 85 U 420 85 ug/kg100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg97-63-2 Ethyl Methacrylate 4.2 U 21 4.2 ug/kg591-78-6 2-Hexanone 60.0 53 16 ug/kg78-83-1 Isobutyl Alcohol 106 420 100 ug/kg I

U = Not detected MDL = Method Detection Limit I = Result >= MDL but < PQL J = Estimated valuePQL = Practical Quantitation Limit V = Indicates analyte found in associated method blankL = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound

23 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing



126-98-7 Methacrylonitrile 24 U 53 24 ug/kg74-83-9 Methyl Bromide 4.2 U 11 4.2 ug/kg74-87-3 Methyl Chloride 4.2 U 11 4.2 ug/kg74-88-4 Methyl Iodide 4.2 U 21 4.2 ug/kg80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate 4.2 U 21 4.2 ug/kg74-95-3 Methylene Bromide 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 23 U 42 23 ug/kg108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 76.6 53 16 ug/kg76-01-7 Pentachloroethane 11 U 53 11 ug/kg107-12-0 Propionitrile 32 U 110 32 ug/kg100-42-5 Styrene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg630-20-6 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.2 U 11 2.2 ug/kg79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 2.7 U 11 2.7 ug/kg108-88-3 Toluene 21 U 42 21 ug/kg71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 4.2 U 11 4.2 ug/kg96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 2.7 U 11 2.7 ug/kg108-05-4 Vinyl Acetate 35 U 53 35 ug/kg75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 2.1 U 11 2.1 ug/kg1330-20-7 Xylene (total) 6.4 32 4.5 ug/kg I



(a) Compound was below calibration range in methanol extract. Associated CCV outside of control limits high.(b) Associated ICV and BS outside control limits low.(c) Associated ICV and BS outside control limits high, however sample ND.


24 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3550C Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 X071507.D 1 06/27/20 13:57 MV 06/26/20 07:35 OP80861 SX2922Run #2

Initial Weight Final VolumeRun #1 30.1 g 1.0 mlRun #2

ABN Appendix IX List


59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methyl Phenol 24 U 210 24 ug/kg95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol 26 U 210 26 ug/kg120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol 24 U 210 24 ug/kg87-65-0 2,6-Dichlorophenol 23 U 210 23 ug/kg105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 56 U 210 56 ug/kg51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 210 U 1100 210 ug/kg534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 85 U 420 85 ug/kg95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 26 U 210 26 ug/kg

3&4-Methylphenol 35 U 210 35 ug/kg88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 23 U 210 23 ug/kg100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 210 U 1100 210 ug/kg87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 210 U 1100 210 ug/kg108-95-2 Phenol 200 210 21 ug/kg I58-90-2 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 25 U 210 25 ug/kg95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 34 U 210 34 ug/kg88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 24 U 210 24 ug/kg83-32-9 Acenaphthene 23 U 210 23 ug/kg208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg98-86-2 Acetophenone 94.2 210 21 ug/kg I53-96-3 2-Acetylaminofluorene 48 U 210 48 ug/kg92-67-1 4-Aminobiphenyl 55 U 210 55 ug/kg62-53-3 Aniline 45 U 210 45 ug/kg120-12-7 Anthracene 24 U 210 24 ug/kg140-57-8 Aramite 85 U 420 85 ug/kg56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 25 U 210 25 ug/kg205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 23 U 210 23 ug/kg191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 22 U 210 22 ug/kg207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 28 U 210 28 ug/kg100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 255 210 21 ug/kg101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 22 U 210 22 ug/kg85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate 64.6 210 42 ug/kg I


25 of 60

FA76166

33.4






106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 53 U 210 53 ug/kg510-15-6 Chlorobenzilate 60 U 210 60 ug/kg111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 21 U 210 21 ug/kg111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 25 U 210 25 ug/kg108-60-1 2,2'-Oxybis(1-chloropropane) a 27 U 210 27 ug/kg91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 21 U 210 21 ug/kg218-01-9 Chrysene 22 U 210 22 ug/kg2303-16-4 Diallate 48 U 210 48 ug/kg53-70-3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 27 U 210 27 ug/kg132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 21 U 210 21 ug/kg95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 23 U 210 23 ug/kg106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 28 U 210 28 ug/kg91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 50 U 210 50 ug/kg84-66-2 Diethyl Phthalate 267 420 42 ug/kg I60-51-5 Dimethoate b 21 U 210 21 ug/kg60-11-7 p-(Dimethylamine)azobenzene 33 U 210 33 ug/kg57-97-6 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthrac b 53 U 210 53 ug/kg119-93-7 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine c 42 U 420 42 ug/kg122-09-8 A,A-Dimethylphenethylamine 420 U 1100 420 ug/kg131-11-3 Dimethyl Phthalate 42 U 210 42 ug/kg117-84-0 Di-n-octyl Phthalate 42 U 210 42 ug/kg84-74-2 Di-n-butyl Phthalate 85 U 420 85 ug/kg99-65-0 m-Dinitrobenzene 22 U 210 22 ug/kg121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 27 U 210 27 ug/kg122-39-4 Diphenylamine 23 U 210 23 ug/kg298-04-4 Disulfoton b 87 U 210 87 ug/kg117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 42 U 420 42 ug/kg62-50-0 Ethyl Methanesulfonate 22 U 210 22 ug/kg52-85-7 Famphur d 21 U 210 21 ug/kg206-44-0 Fluoranthene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg86-73-7 Fluorene 23 U 210 23 ug/kg118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 22 U 210 22 ug/kg87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 42 U 210 42 ug/kg67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 25 U 210 25 ug/kg70-30-4 Hexachlorophene a 420 U 4200 420 ug/kg1888-71-7 Hexachloropropene 39 U 210 39 ug/kg


26 of 60

FA76166

33.4






193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene b 26 U 210 26 ug/kg465-73-6 Isodrin 51 U 210 51 ug/kg78-59-1 Isophorone 21 U 210 21 ug/kg120-58-1 Isosafrole 46 U 210 46 ug/kg143-50-0 Kepone e 85 U 420 85 ug/kg91-80-5 Methapyrilene c 210 U 850 210 ug/kg56-49-5 3-Methylcholanthrene b 55 U 210 55 ug/kg66-27-3 Methyl Methanesulfonate 28 U 210 28 ug/kg91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg298-00-0 Methyl Parathion b 21 U 210 21 ug/kg91-20-3 Naphthalene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg130-15-4 1,4-Naphthoquinone f 42 U 210 42 ug/kg134-32-7 1-Naphthylamine 45 U 210 45 ug/kg91-59-8 2-Naphthylamine 56 U 210 56 ug/kg88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 49 U 210 49 ug/kg99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 25 U 210 25 ug/kg100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 61 U 210 61 ug/kg98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg99-55-8 5-Nitro-o-toluidine 42 U 210 42 ug/kg55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 24 U 210 24 ug/kg62-75-9 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 35 U 210 35 ug/kg924-16-3 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine g 34 U 210 34 ug/kg621-64-7 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 21 U 210 21 ug/kg86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 23 U 210 23 ug/kg10595-95-6 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 41 U 210 41 ug/kg59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 41 U 210 41 ug/kg100-75-4 N-Nitrosopiperidine 30 U 210 30 ug/kg930-55-2 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 21 U 210 21 ug/kg56-57-5 4-Nitroquinoline 1-Oxide 85 U 850 85 ug/kg126-68-1 O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothi b 42 U 210 42 ug/kg56-38-2 Parathion b 21 U 210 21 ug/kg608-93-5 Pentachlorobenzene 29 U 210 29 ug/kg82-68-8 Pentachloronitrobenzene 56 U 210 56 ug/kg62-44-2 Phenacetin 37 U 210 37 ug/kg85-01-8 Phenanthrene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg106-50-3 p-Phenylenediamine 420 U 2100 420 ug/kg298-02-2 Phorate b 42 U 210 42 ug/kg109-06-8 2-Picoline 42 U 210 42 ug/kg23950-58-5 Pronamide 53 U 210 53 ug/kg129-00-0 Pyrene 24 U 210 24 ug/kg


27 of 60

FA76166

33.4






110-86-1 Pyridine 85 U 420 85 ug/kg94-59-7 Safrole 42 U 210 42 ug/kg95-94-3 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 21 U 210 21 ug/kg3689-24-5 Tetraethyl dithiopyrophospha b 24 U 210 24 ug/kg297-97-2 Thionazin b 21 U 210 21 ug/kg95-53-4 o-Toluidine 38 U 210 38 ug/kg120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 25 U 210 25 ug/kg99-35-4 sym-Trinitrobenzene 23 U 210 23 ug/kg



(a) Associated CCV outside of control limits low.(b) Associated BS outside control limits high. Sample was ND.(c) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.(d) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND. Associated CCV outside of control limits low.(e) Associated Initial calibration outside control limits.(f) Associated ICV outside control limits low. Associated CCV outside of control limits low.(g) Associated ICV outside control limits low.


28 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8151A SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 a CC068616.D 5 06/23/20 16:36 JA 06/22/20 07:30 OP80781 GCC1675Run #2


Appendix IX Herbicide List


94-75-7 2,4-D 54 U 210 54 ug/kg93-72-1 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 5.9 U 21 5.9 ug/kg93-76-5 2,4,5-T 5.5 U 21 5.5 ug/kg88-85-7 Dinoseb 110 U 530 110 ug/kg


19719-28-9 2,4-DCAA 62% 31-132%

(a) Dilution required due to matrix interference.


29 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8081B SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 a ST148006.D 5 06/22/20 21:13 WH 06/22/20 09:00 OP80782 GST3552Run #2


Appendix IX Pesticide List


309-00-2 Aldrin 3.3 U 11 3.3 ug/kg319-84-6 alpha-BHC 3.3 U 11 3.3 ug/kg319-85-7 beta-BHC 3.1 U 11 3.1 ug/kg319-86-8 delta-BHC 3.0 U 11 3.0 ug/kg58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 10.3 11 3.2 ug/kg I12789-03-6 Chlordane 32 U 110 32 ug/kg60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.0 U 11 3.0 ug/kg72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 4.8 21 2.9 ug/kg I72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 37.8 21 3.8 ug/kg50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 3.2 U 21 3.2 ug/kg72-20-8 Endrin 5.3 U 21 5.3 ug/kg1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 2.8 U 21 2.8 ug/kg7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 2.5 U 21 2.5 ug/kg959-98-8 Endosulfan-I 2.4 U 11 2.4 ug/kg33213-65-9 Endosulfan-II 2.5 U 11 2.5 ug/kg76-44-8 Heptachlor 3.1 U 11 3.1 ug/kg1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 3.1 U 11 3.1 ug/kg72-43-5 Methoxychlor b 4.2 U 21 4.2 ug/kg8001-35-2 Toxaphene 160 U 530 160 ug/kg



(a) All hits confirmed by dual column analysis. Dilution required due to matrix interference.(b) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.


30 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8082A SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 XX072803.D 1 06/23/20 16:20 NM 06/22/20 09:00 OP80783 GXX1332Run #2


PCB List


12674-11-2 Aroclor 1016 8.5 U 21 8.5 ug/kg11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221 11 U 21 11 ug/kg11141-16-5 Aroclor 1232 11 U 21 11 ug/kg53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242 8.5 U 21 8.5 ug/kg12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 8.5 U 21 8.5 ug/kg11097-69-1 Aroclor 1254 8.5 U 21 8.5 ug/kg11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 8.5 U 21 8.5 ug/kg




31 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8141B SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 ZZ34781.D 1 06/24/20 16:40 NJ 06/22/20 11:00 OP80785 GZZ1429Run #2


Appendix IX OP Pesticide List


60-51-5 Dimethoate a 13 U 50 13 ug/kg298-04-4 Disulfoton 13 U 50 13 ug/kg56-38-2 Ethyl Parathion 13 U 50 13 ug/kg52-85-7 Famphur 13 U 50 13 ug/kg298-00-0 Methyl Parathion 13 U 50 13 ug/kg298-02-2 Phorate 13 U 50 13 ug/kg3689-24-5 Sulfotep 13 U 50 13 ug/kg297-97-2 Thionazin 13 U 50 13 ug/kg126-68-1 O,O,O-Triethylphosphorothioa 13 U 50 13 ug/kg


126-73-8 Tributyl phosphate 62% 47-136%126-73-8 Tributyl phosphate 64% 47-136%

(a) Associated BS outside of control limits high, sample was ND.


32 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20

Percent Solids: 78.3 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

Metals Analysis

Analyte Result PQL MDL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method Prep Method

Antimony 0.67 U 10 0.67 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Arsenic 7.5 5.2 1.0 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Barium 32.7 10 0.052 mg/kg 1 06/26/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 4

Beryllium 0.21 I 0.26 0.026 mg/kg 1 06/26/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 4

Cadmium 0.26 U 2.1 0.26 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Chromium 81.1 5.2 0.52 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Cobalt 0.34 I 2.6 0.026 mg/kg 1 06/26/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 4

Copper 6.8 I 13 0.52 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Lead 13.3 10 0.52 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Mercury 0.030 I 0.048 0.0048 mg/kg 1 06/26/20 06/26/20 JC SW846 7471B 1 SW846 7471B 5

Nickel 1.9 I 21 0.26 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Selenium 1.2 U 10 1.2 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Silver 0.083 I 0.52 0.043 mg/kg 1 06/26/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 4

Thallium 0.87 I 5.2 0.57 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

Tin 1.5 I 2.6 0.047 mg/kg 1 06/26/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 4

Vanadium 39.8 2.6 0.026 mg/kg 1 06/26/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 4

Zinc 12.8 10 1.6 mg/kg 10 06/26/20 07/02/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 4

(1) Instrument QC Batch: MA16860(2) Instrument QC Batch: MA16862(3) Instrument QC Batch: MA16876(4) Prep QC Batch: MP37460(5) Prep QC Batch: MP37462

PQL = Practical Quantitation Limit U = Indicates a result < MDLMDL = Method Detection Limit I = Indicates a result >= MDL but < PQL

33 of 60

FA76166

33.4



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: 83.1 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 F0096244.D 1 06/23/20 17:02 SP n/a n/a VF3385Run #2 F0096223.D 1 06/22/20 21:45 SP n/a n/a VF3384

Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol AliquotRun #1 4.21 g 5.0 mlRun #2 4.01 g 5.0 ml 20.0 ul



67-64-1 Acetone a 4430 290 140 ug/kg L75-05-8 Acetonitrile 26 U 71 26 ug/kg107-02-8 Acrolein b 17 U 36 17 ug/kg107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 15 U 36 15 ug/kg107-05-1 Allyl chloride c 7.1 U 36 7.1 ug/kg71-43-2 Benzene 1.7 U 7.1 1.7 ug/kg75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg75-25-2 Bromoform 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 559 36 10 ug/kg75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 5.4 7.1 1.4 ug/kg I56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 1.5 U 7.1 1.5 ug/kg108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg75-00-3 Chloroethane 2.9 U 7.1 2.9 ug/kg67-66-3 Chloroform 1.9 U 7.1 1.9 ug/kg126-99-8 Chloroprene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 2.7 U 7.1 2.7 ug/kg106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.9 U 7.1 2.9 ug/kg110-57-6 trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene 2.9 U 14 2.9 ug/kg75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.5 U 7.1 2.5 ug/kg107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane 57 U 290 57 ug/kg100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg97-63-2 Ethyl Methacrylate 2.9 U 14 2.9 ug/kg591-78-6 2-Hexanone 24.6 36 11 ug/kg I78-83-1 Isobutyl Alcohol 67 U 290 67 ug/kg


34 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: 83.1 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing



126-98-7 Methacrylonitrile 16 U 36 16 ug/kg74-83-9 Methyl Bromide 2.9 U 7.1 2.9 ug/kg74-87-3 Methyl Chloride 2.9 U 7.1 2.9 ug/kg74-88-4 Methyl Iodide 2.9 U 14 2.9 ug/kg80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate 2.9 U 14 2.9 ug/kg74-95-3 Methylene Bromide 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 16 U 29 16 ug/kg108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 37.2 36 11 ug/kg76-01-7 Pentachloroethane 7.1 U 36 7.1 ug/kg107-12-0 Propionitrile 22 U 71 22 ug/kg100-42-5 Styrene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg630-20-6 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.5 U 7.1 1.5 ug/kg79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 1.8 U 7.1 1.8 ug/kg108-88-3 Toluene 14 U 29 14 ug/kg71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.9 U 7.1 2.9 ug/kg96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1.8 U 7.1 1.8 ug/kg108-05-4 Vinyl Acetate 23 U 36 23 ug/kg75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 1.4 U 7.1 1.4 ug/kg1330-20-7 Xylene (total) 3.5 21 3.0 ug/kg I



(a) Compound was below calibration range in methanol extract. Associated CCV outside of control limits high.(b) Associated ICV and BS outside control limits low.(c) Associated ICV and BS outside control limits high, however sample ND.


35 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3550C Percent Solids: 83.1 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing






3&4-Methylphenol 33 U 200 33 ug/kg88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 22 U 200 22 ug/kg100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 200 U 1000 200 ug/kg87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 200 U 1000 200 ug/kg108-95-2 Phenol 110 200 20 ug/kg I58-90-2 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 24 U 200 24 ug/kg95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 32 U 200 32 ug/kg88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 23 U 200 23 ug/kg83-32-9 Acenaphthene 21 U 200 21 ug/kg208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg98-86-2 Acetophenone 65.3 200 20 ug/kg I53-96-3 2-Acetylaminofluorene 46 U 200 46 ug/kg92-67-1 4-Aminobiphenyl 52 U 200 52 ug/kg62-53-3 Aniline 43 U 200 43 ug/kg120-12-7 Anthracene 23 U 200 23 ug/kg140-57-8 Aramite 81 U 400 81 ug/kg56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 24 U 200 24 ug/kg205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 22 U 200 22 ug/kg191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 21 U 200 21 ug/kg207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 26 U 200 26 ug/kg100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 195 200 20 ug/kg I101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 21 U 200 21 ug/kg85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate 40 U 200 40 ug/kg


36 of 60

FA76166

33.5






106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 51 U 200 51 ug/kg510-15-6 Chlorobenzilate a 57 U 200 57 ug/kg111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 20 U 200 20 ug/kg111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 23 U 200 23 ug/kg108-60-1 2,2'-Oxybis(1-chloropropane) 25 U 200 25 ug/kg91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 20 U 200 20 ug/kg218-01-9 Chrysene 21 U 200 21 ug/kg2303-16-4 Diallate 46 U 200 46 ug/kg53-70-3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 25 U 200 25 ug/kg132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 20 U 200 20 ug/kg95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 22 U 200 22 ug/kg106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 27 U 200 27 ug/kg91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 48 U 200 48 ug/kg84-66-2 Diethyl Phthalate 40 U 400 40 ug/kg60-51-5 Dimethoate a 20 U 200 20 ug/kg60-11-7 p-(Dimethylamine)azobenzen b 32 U 200 32 ug/kg57-97-6 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthrace 50 U 200 50 ug/kg119-93-7 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine c 40 U 400 40 ug/kg122-09-8 A,A-Dimethylphenethylamin d 400 U 1000 400 ug/kg131-11-3 Dimethyl Phthalate 40 U 200 40 ug/kg117-84-0 Di-n-octyl Phthalate 40 U 200 40 ug/kg84-74-2 Di-n-butyl Phthalate 81 U 400 81 ug/kg99-65-0 m-Dinitrobenzene 21 U 200 21 ug/kg121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 26 U 200 26 ug/kg122-39-4 Diphenylamine 22 U 200 22 ug/kg298-04-4 Disulfoton d 82 U 200 82 ug/kg117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 40 U 400 40 ug/kg62-50-0 Ethyl Methanesulfonate 21 U 200 21 ug/kg52-85-7 Famphur c 20 U 200 20 ug/kg206-44-0 Fluoranthene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg86-73-7 Fluorene 22 U 200 22 ug/kg118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 21 U 200 21 ug/kg87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 U 200 40 ug/kg67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 24 U 200 24 ug/kg70-30-4 Hexachlorophene 400 U 4000 400 ug/kg1888-71-7 Hexachloropropene 37 U 200 37 ug/kg


37 of 60

FA76166

33.5






193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene e 25 U 200 25 ug/kg465-73-6 Isodrin 49 U 200 49 ug/kg78-59-1 Isophorone 20 U 200 20 ug/kg120-58-1 Isosafrole 44 U 200 44 ug/kg143-50-0 Kepone c 81 U 400 81 ug/kg91-80-5 Methapyrilene 200 U 810 200 ug/kg56-49-5 3-Methylcholanthrene 52 U 200 52 ug/kg66-27-3 Methyl Methanesulfonate 27 U 200 27 ug/kg91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg298-00-0 Methyl Parathion a 20 U 200 20 ug/kg91-20-3 Naphthalene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg130-15-4 1,4-Naphthoquinone d 40 U 200 40 ug/kg134-32-7 1-Naphthylamine 43 U 200 43 ug/kg91-59-8 2-Naphthylamine 53 U 200 53 ug/kg88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 47 U 200 47 ug/kg99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 24 U 200 24 ug/kg100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 58 U 200 58 ug/kg98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg99-55-8 5-Nitro-o-toluidine a 40 U 200 40 ug/kg55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 23 U 200 23 ug/kg62-75-9 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 34 U 200 34 ug/kg924-16-3 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine d 32 U 200 32 ug/kg621-64-7 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 20 U 200 20 ug/kg86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 22 U 200 22 ug/kg10595-95-6 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 39 U 200 39 ug/kg59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 39 U 200 39 ug/kg100-75-4 N-Nitrosopiperidine 28 U 200 28 ug/kg930-55-2 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 20 U 200 20 ug/kg56-57-5 4-Nitroquinoline 1-Oxide 81 U 810 81 ug/kg126-68-1 O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothio 40 U 200 40 ug/kg56-38-2 Parathion a 20 U 200 20 ug/kg608-93-5 Pentachlorobenzene 27 U 200 27 ug/kg82-68-8 Pentachloronitrobenzene 53 U 200 53 ug/kg62-44-2 Phenacetin 36 U 200 36 ug/kg85-01-8 Phenanthrene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg106-50-3 p-Phenylenediamine 400 U 2000 400 ug/kg298-02-2 Phorate a 40 U 200 40 ug/kg109-06-8 2-Picoline 40 U 200 40 ug/kg23950-58-5 Pronamide 50 U 200 50 ug/kg129-00-0 Pyrene 23 U 200 23 ug/kg


38 of 60

FA76166

33.5






110-86-1 Pyridine c 81 U 400 81 ug/kg94-59-7 Safrole 40 U 200 40 ug/kg95-94-3 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 20 U 200 20 ug/kg3689-24-5 Tetraethyl dithiopyrophospha a 23 U 200 23 ug/kg297-97-2 Thionazin a 20 U 200 20 ug/kg95-53-4 o-Toluidine 36 U 200 36 ug/kg120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 24 U 200 24 ug/kg99-35-4 sym-Trinitrobenzene 22 U 200 22 ug/kg



(a) Associated BS recovery outside control limits.(b) Associated BS recovery outside control limits. Insufficient sample for re-extraction.(c) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.(d) Associated ICV outside control limits low.(e) Associated CCV outside of control limits high, sample was ND.


39 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8151A SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 83.1 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing





94-75-7 2,4-D 50 U 200 50 ug/kg93-72-1 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 5.5 U 20 5.5 ug/kg93-76-5 2,4,5-T 5.0 U 20 5.0 ug/kg88-85-7 Dinoseb 98 U 490 98 ug/kg


19719-28-9 2,4-DCAA 55% 31-132%

(a) Dilution required due to matrix interference.


40 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8081B SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 83.1 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing





309-00-2 Aldrin 0.62 U 2.0 0.62 ug/kg319-84-6 alpha-BHC 0.62 U 2.0 0.62 ug/kg319-85-7 beta-BHC 0.57 U 2.0 0.57 ug/kg319-86-8 delta-BHC 0.55 U 2.0 0.55 ug/kg58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 6.0 2.0 0.59 ug/kg12789-03-6 Chlordane 5.9 U 20 5.9 ug/kg60-57-1 Dieldrin 0.55 U 2.0 0.55 ug/kg72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 0.54 U 3.9 0.54 ug/kg72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 30.0 3.9 0.71 ug/kg50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.60 U 3.9 0.60 ug/kg72-20-8 Endrin 0.99 U 3.9 0.99 ug/kg1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 0.52 U 3.9 0.52 ug/kg7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 0.45 U 3.9 0.45 ug/kg959-98-8 Endosulfan-I 0.45 U 2.0 0.45 ug/kg33213-65-9 Endosulfan-II 0.46 U 2.0 0.46 ug/kg76-44-8 Heptachlor 0.58 U 2.0 0.58 ug/kg1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 0.57 U 2.0 0.57 ug/kg72-43-5 Methoxychlor b 0.78 U 3.9 0.78 ug/kg8001-35-2 Toxaphene 29 U 98 29 ug/kg



(a) All hits confirmed by dual column analysis.(b) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.


41 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8082A SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 83.1 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing



PCB List


12674-11-2 Aroclor 1016 7.8 U 20 7.8 ug/kg11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221 9.8 U 20 9.8 ug/kg11141-16-5 Aroclor 1232 9.8 U 20 9.8 ug/kg53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242 7.8 U 20 7.8 ug/kg12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 7.8 U 20 7.8 ug/kg11097-69-1 Aroclor 1254 7.8 U 20 7.8 ug/kg11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 7.8 U 20 7.8 ug/kg




42 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8141B SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 83.1 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing










43 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF MIXED Lab Sample ID: FA76166-5 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20


Metals Analysis


Antimony a 0.55 I 2.1 0.14 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 4 SW846 3050B 6

Arsenic a 2.6 1.1 0.21 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 4 SW846 3050B 6



Cadmium a 0.053 U 0.43 0.053 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

Chromium a 31.7 1.1 0.11 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6


Copper a 2.1 I 2.7 0.11 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

Lead a 0.11 U 2.1 0.11 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6


Nickel a 0.75 I 4.3 0.053 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

Selenium a 1.3 I 2.1 0.26 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 4 SW846 3050B 6

Silver 0.091 I 0.53 0.044 mg/kg 1 06/23/20 06/24/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 6

Thallium a 0.12 U 1.1 0.12 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6



Zinc a 5.1 2.1 0.32 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

(1) Instrument QC Batch: MA16851(2) Instrument QC Batch: MA16854(3) Instrument QC Batch: MA16859(4) Instrument QC Batch: MA16862(5) Prep QC Batch: MP37440(6) Prep QC Batch: MP37441

(a) Elevated reporting limit(s) due to matrix interference.


44 of 60

FA76166

33.5



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: 92.9 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical BatchRun #1 a F0096245.D 1 06/23/20 17:28 SP n/a n/a VF3385Run #2 F0096269.D 1 06/24/20 14:21 SP n/a n/a VF3386Run #3 F0096224.D 1 06/22/20 22:10 SP n/a n/a VF3384

Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol AliquotRun #1 4.31 g 5.0 mlRun #2 4.12 g 5.0 mlRun #3 4.07 g 5.0 ml 100 ul



67-64-1 Acetone b 2020 c 260 130 ug/kg L75-05-8 Acetonitrile 22 U 62 22 ug/kg107-02-8 Acrolein d 15 U c 33 15 ug/kg107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 13 U 31 13 ug/kg107-05-1 Allyl chloride e 6.2 U 31 6.2 ug/kg71-43-2 Benzene f 1.9 c 6.5 1.6 ug/kg I75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg75-25-2 Bromoform 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 112 31 9.1 ug/kg75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 2.6 6.2 1.2 ug/kg I56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 1.3 U 6.2 1.3 ug/kg108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg75-00-3 Chloroethane 2.5 U 6.2 2.5 ug/kg67-66-3 Chloroform 1.7 U 6.2 1.7 ug/kg126-99-8 Chloroprene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 2.4 U 6.2 2.4 ug/kg106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.5 U 6.2 2.5 ug/kg110-57-6 trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene 2.5 U 12 2.5 ug/kg75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 2.2 U 6.2 2.2 ug/kg107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethylene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane 53 U c 260 53 ug/kg100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg97-63-2 Ethyl Methacrylate 2.5 U 12 2.5 ug/kg


45 of 60

FA76166

33.6



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: 92.9 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing



591-78-6 2-Hexanone 9.4 U 31 9.4 ug/kg78-83-1 Isobutyl Alcohol 62 U c 260 62 ug/kg126-98-7 Methacrylonitrile 14 U 31 14 ug/kg74-83-9 Methyl Bromide 2.5 U 6.2 2.5 ug/kg74-87-3 Methyl Chloride 2.5 U 6.2 2.5 ug/kg74-88-4 Methyl Iodide 2.5 U 12 2.5 ug/kg80-62-6 Methyl Methacrylate 2.5 U 12 2.5 ug/kg74-95-3 Methylene Bromide 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 14 U 25 14 ug/kg108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 15.3 31 9.4 ug/kg I76-01-7 Pentachloroethane 6.2 U 31 6.2 ug/kg107-12-0 Propionitrile 19 U 62 19 ug/kg100-42-5 Styrene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg630-20-6 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 U 6.2 1.3 ug/kg79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 1.6 U 6.2 1.6 ug/kg108-88-3 Toluene f 18.3 c 26 13 ug/kg I71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 2.5 U 6.2 2.5 ug/kg96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1.6 U 6.2 1.6 ug/kg108-05-4 Vinyl Acetate 20 U 31 20 ug/kg75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 1.2 U 6.2 1.2 ug/kg1330-20-7 Xylene (total) 2.6 U 19 2.6 ug/kg

CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Run# 3 Limits

1868-53-7 Dibromofluoromethane 99% 102% 94% 75-124%17060-07-0 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 101% 103% 95% 72-135%2037-26-5 Toluene-D8 104% 104% 103% 75-126%460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 117% 118% 98% 71-133%

(a) Internal standard response(s) outside method criteria; associated analyte(s) ND.(b) Compound was below calibration range in methanol extract.(c) Result is from Run# 2(d) Associated ICV outside control limits low.(e) Associated ICV and BS outside control limits high, however sample ND.(f) Results from different vials are not consistent; higher results were reported.


46 of 60

FA76166

33.6



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3550C Percent Solids: 92.9 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing






3&4-Methylphenol 29 U 180 29 ug/kg88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 19 U 180 19 ug/kg100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 180 U 890 180 ug/kg87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 180 U 890 180 ug/kg108-95-2 Phenol 26.6 180 18 ug/kg I58-90-2 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 21 U 180 21 ug/kg95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 28 U 180 28 ug/kg88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 U 180 20 ug/kg83-32-9 Acenaphthene 19 U 180 19 ug/kg208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg98-86-2 Acetophenone 18 U 180 18 ug/kg53-96-3 2-Acetylaminofluorene 40 U 180 40 ug/kg92-67-1 4-Aminobiphenyl 46 U 180 46 ug/kg62-53-3 Aniline 38 U 180 38 ug/kg120-12-7 Anthracene 20 U 180 20 ug/kg140-57-8 Aramite 71 U 350 71 ug/kg56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 21 U 180 21 ug/kg205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 19 U 180 19 ug/kg191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 23 U 180 23 ug/kg100-51-6 Benzyl Alcohol 93.1 180 18 ug/kg I101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 18 U 180 18 ug/kg85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate 35 U 180 35 ug/kg


47 of 60

FA76166

33.6






106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 45 U 180 45 ug/kg510-15-6 Chlorobenzilate a 50 U 180 50 ug/kg111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 18 U 180 18 ug/kg111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 21 U 180 21 ug/kg108-60-1 2,2'-Oxybis(1-chloropropane) 22 U 180 22 ug/kg91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 18 U 180 18 ug/kg218-01-9 Chrysene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg2303-16-4 Diallate 40 U 180 40 ug/kg53-70-3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 22 U 180 22 ug/kg132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 18 U 180 18 ug/kg95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 19 U 180 19 ug/kg106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 24 U 180 24 ug/kg91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 42 U 180 42 ug/kg84-66-2 Diethyl Phthalate 35 U 350 35 ug/kg60-51-5 Dimethoate a 18 U 180 18 ug/kg60-11-7 p-(Dimethylamine)azobenzen b 28 U 180 28 ug/kg57-97-6 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthrace 44 U 180 44 ug/kg119-93-7 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine c 35 U 350 35 ug/kg122-09-8 A,A-Dimethylphenethylamin d 350 U 890 350 ug/kg131-11-3 Dimethyl Phthalate 35 U 180 35 ug/kg117-84-0 Di-n-octyl Phthalate 35 U 180 35 ug/kg84-74-2 Di-n-butyl Phthalate 71 U 350 71 ug/kg99-65-0 m-Dinitrobenzene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 23 U 180 23 ug/kg122-39-4 Diphenylamine 19 U 180 19 ug/kg298-04-4 Disulfoton d 72 U 180 72 ug/kg117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 35 U 350 35 ug/kg62-50-0 Ethyl Methanesulfonate 18 U 180 18 ug/kg52-85-7 Famphur c 18 U 180 18 ug/kg206-44-0 Fluoranthene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg86-73-7 Fluorene 19 U 180 19 ug/kg118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 35 U 180 35 ug/kg67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 21 U 180 21 ug/kg70-30-4 Hexachlorophene 350 U 3500 350 ug/kg1888-71-7 Hexachloropropene 33 U 180 33 ug/kg


48 of 60

FA76166

33.6






193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene e 22 U 180 22 ug/kg465-73-6 Isodrin 43 U 180 43 ug/kg78-59-1 Isophorone 18 U 180 18 ug/kg120-58-1 Isosafrole 38 U 180 38 ug/kg143-50-0 Kepone c 71 U 350 71 ug/kg91-80-5 Methapyrilene 180 U 710 180 ug/kg56-49-5 3-Methylcholanthrene 46 U 180 46 ug/kg66-27-3 Methyl Methanesulfonate 23 U 180 23 ug/kg91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg298-00-0 Methyl Parathion a 18 U 180 18 ug/kg91-20-3 Naphthalene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg130-15-4 1,4-Naphthoquinone d 35 U 180 35 ug/kg134-32-7 1-Naphthylamine 38 U 180 38 ug/kg91-59-8 2-Naphthylamine 47 U 180 47 ug/kg88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 41 U 180 41 ug/kg99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 21 U 180 21 ug/kg100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 51 U 180 51 ug/kg98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg99-55-8 5-Nitro-o-toluidine a 35 U 180 35 ug/kg55-18-5 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 20 U 180 20 ug/kg62-75-9 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 30 U 180 30 ug/kg924-16-3 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine d 28 U 180 28 ug/kg621-64-7 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 18 U 180 18 ug/kg86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 19 U 180 19 ug/kg10595-95-6 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 34 U 180 34 ug/kg59-89-2 N-Nitrosomorpholine 34 U 180 34 ug/kg100-75-4 N-Nitrosopiperidine 25 U 180 25 ug/kg930-55-2 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 18 U 180 18 ug/kg56-57-5 4-Nitroquinoline 1-Oxide 71 U 710 71 ug/kg126-68-1 O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothio 35 U 180 35 ug/kg56-38-2 Parathion a 18 U 180 18 ug/kg608-93-5 Pentachlorobenzene 24 U 180 24 ug/kg82-68-8 Pentachloronitrobenzene 47 U 180 47 ug/kg62-44-2 Phenacetin 31 U 180 31 ug/kg85-01-8 Phenanthrene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg106-50-3 p-Phenylenediamine 350 U 1800 350 ug/kg298-02-2 Phorate a 35 U 180 35 ug/kg109-06-8 2-Picoline 35 U 180 35 ug/kg23950-58-5 Pronamide 44 U 180 44 ug/kg129-00-0 Pyrene 20 U 180 20 ug/kg


49 of 60

FA76166

33.6






110-86-1 Pyridine c 71 U 350 71 ug/kg94-59-7 Safrole 35 U 180 35 ug/kg95-94-3 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 18 U 180 18 ug/kg3689-24-5 Tetraethyl dithiopyrophospha a 20 U 180 20 ug/kg297-97-2 Thionazin a 18 U 180 18 ug/kg95-53-4 o-Toluidine 32 U 180 32 ug/kg120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 21 U 180 21 ug/kg99-35-4 sym-Trinitrobenzene 19 U 180 19 ug/kg



(a) Associated BS recovery outside control limits.(b) Associated BS recovery outside control limits. Insufficient sample for re-extraction.(c) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.(d) Associated ICV outside control limits low.(e) Associated CCV outside of control limits high, sample was ND.


50 of 60

FA76166

33.6



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8151A SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 92.9 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing





94-75-7 2,4-D 45 U 180 45 ug/kg93-72-1 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 5.0 U 18 5.0 ug/kg93-76-5 2,4,5-T 4.6 U 18 4.6 ug/kg88-85-7 Dinoseb b 89 U 440 89 ug/kg


19719-28-9 2,4-DCAA 57% 31-132%

(a) Dilution required due to matrix interference.(b) Associated CCV outside of control limits high, sample was ND.


51 of 60

FA76166

33.6



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8081B SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 92.9 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing





309-00-2 Aldrin 0.57 U 1.8 0.57 ug/kg319-84-6 alpha-BHC 0.57 U 1.8 0.57 ug/kg319-85-7 beta-BHC 0.53 U 1.8 0.53 ug/kg319-86-8 delta-BHC 0.51 U 1.8 0.51 ug/kg58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.9 1.8 0.54 ug/kg12789-03-6 Chlordane 5.5 U 18 5.5 ug/kg60-57-1 Dieldrin 0.51 U 1.8 0.51 ug/kg72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 0.50 U 3.6 0.50 ug/kg72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 9.1 3.6 0.66 ug/kg50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.55 U 3.6 0.55 ug/kg72-20-8 Endrin 0.91 U 3.6 0.91 ug/kg1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 0.48 U 3.6 0.48 ug/kg7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 0.42 U 3.6 0.42 ug/kg959-98-8 Endosulfan-I 0.42 U 1.8 0.42 ug/kg33213-65-9 Endosulfan-II 0.43 U 1.8 0.43 ug/kg76-44-8 Heptachlor 0.53 U 1.8 0.53 ug/kg1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 0.53 U 1.8 0.53 ug/kg72-43-5 Methoxychlor b 0.72 U 3.6 0.72 ug/kg8001-35-2 Toxaphene 27 U 90 27 ug/kg



(a) All hits confirmed by dual column analysis.(b) Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.


52 of 60

FA76166

33.6



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8082A SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 92.9 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing



PCB List


12674-11-2 Aroclor 1016 7.2 U 18 7.2 ug/kg11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221 9.0 U 18 9.0 ug/kg11141-16-5 Aroclor 1232 9.0 U 18 9.0 ug/kg53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242 7.2 U 18 7.2 ug/kg12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 7.2 U 18 7.2 ug/kg11097-69-1 Aroclor 1254 7.2 U 18 7.2 ug/kg11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 7.2 U 18 7.2 ug/kg




53 of 60

FA76166

33.6



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20 Method: SW846 8141B SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 92.9 Project: NURF Alum Residual Testing










54 of 60

FA76166

33.6



Client Sample ID: ERD NURF OLD Lab Sample ID: FA76166-6 Date Sampled: 06/18/20 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 06/19/20


Metals Analysis


Antimony a 0.59 I 2.0 0.13 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 4 SW846 3050B 6

Arsenic a 2.1 1.0 0.20 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 4 SW846 3050B 6



Cadmium a 0.050 U 0.40 0.050 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

Chromium a 26.3 1.0 0.10 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6


Copper a 1.6 I 2.5 0.10 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

Lead a 0.45 I 2.0 0.10 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6


Nickel a 0.70 I 4.0 0.050 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

Selenium a 0.64 I 2.0 0.24 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/26/20 LM SW846 6010C 4 SW846 3050B 6

Silver 0.041 U 0.50 0.041 mg/kg 1 06/23/20 06/24/20 LM SW846 6010C 2 SW846 3050B 6

Thallium a 0.11 U 1.0 0.11 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6



Zinc a 4.1 2.0 0.30 mg/kg 2 06/23/20 06/25/20 LM SW846 6010C 3 SW846 3050B 6

(1) Instrument QC Batch: MA16851(2) Instrument QC Batch: MA16854(3) Instrument QC Batch: MA16859(4) Instrument QC Batch: MA16862(5) Prep QC Batch: MP37440(6) Prep QC Batch: MP37441

(a) Elevated reporting limit(s) due to matrix interference.


55 of 60

FA76166

33.6


Misc. Forms

Custody Documents and Other Forms

Includes the following where applicable:

• Certification Exceptions• Chain of Custody

Orlando, FLSection 4

56 of 60

FA76166

4

Parameter Certification Exceptions Page 1 of 1 Job Number: FA76166Account: ERDFLORL Environmental Research & DesignProject: NURF Alum Residual Testing

The following parameters included in this report are exceptions to NELAC certification. The certification status of each is indicated below.

Parameter CAS# Method Mat Certification Status

O,O,O-Triethylphosphorothioa 126-68-1 SW846 8141B SO Certified by SOP GC032

57 of 60

FA76166

44.1

FA76166: Chain of CustodyPage 1 of 3

58 of 60

FA76166

44.2

SGS Sample Receipt Summary

Job Number: FA76166 Client: ERD

Date / Time Received: 6/19/2020 7:10:00 PM Delivery Method: COURIER

Project: NURF

Airbill #'s:

Cooler Information

1. Custody Seals Present

2. Custody Seals Intact

4. Cooler temp verification

3. Temp criteria achieved

5. Cooler media

IR Gun

Ice (Bag)

Trip Blank Information

1. Trip Blank present / cooler

2. Trip Blank listed on COC

2. Samples preserved properly

Sample Information

1. Sample labels present on bottles

5. Sample recvd within HT

4. Condition of sample

3. Sufficient volume/containers recvd for analysis:

Intact

Comments SAMPLE TIMES COOLECTED NOT STATED ON CHAIN.

SAMPLE #4 TIME :"1500"

SAMPLE #5 TIME "1530"

SAMPLE #6 TIME "1515"

Cooler Temps (Raw Measured) °C:

Cooler Temps (Corrected) °C:

Cooler 3: (4.2);

Cooler 3: (3.4);

3. Type Of TB Received

W or S N/A

6. Dates/Times/IDs on COC match Sample Label

7. VOCs have headspace

8. Bottles received for unspecified tests

9. Compositing instructions clear

10. Voa Soil Kits/Jars received past 48hrs?

11. % Solids Jar received?

Misc. Information

25-Gram 5-GramNumber of Encores: Number of 5035 Field Kits: Number of Lab Filtered Metals:

Test Strip Lot #s: pH 0-3 230315 pH 10-12 219813A Other: (Specify)

Y or N N/A

Y or N

Therm ID: IR 1; Therm CF: -0.8; # of Coolers: 1

Y or N N/A

12. Residual Chlorine Present?

Residual Chlorine Test Strip Lot #:

Technician: Reviewer:PETERH Date:Date: 6/19/2020 7:10:00 PM

SM001Rev. Date 05/24/17


59 of 60

FA76166

44.2

SAMPLES #1 and #4 HAVE SAME COLLECTION TIME OF "1500"



Thank you.

Response:

Response Date: 6/22/20CSR: JDS

SM001Rev. Date 05/24/17


60 of 60

FA76166

44.2


ATTACHMENT 2

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALUM RESIDUAL

Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEWERD NURF

MIXEDERD NURF OLD

Lab Sample ID: FA76166-4 FA76166-5 FA76166-6Date Sampled: 6/18/2020 6/18/2020 6/18/2020

Matrix: Soil Soil Soil

"Hits" for a parameter are highlighted in yellow

Chemical Characteristics of Alum Sludge Collected at the NuRF Facility

Residential Clean Soil Criteria -

Direct Exposure (Ch. 62-777 FAC)

Acetone ug/kg 8030 L d 4430 L d 2020 L e 11,000,000Acetonitrile ug/kg 38 U 26 U 22 U -Acrolein ug/kg 25 U f 17 U f 15 U g 50Acrylonitrile ug/kg 23 U 15 U 13 U 300Allyl chloride ug/kg 11 U h 7.1 U h 6.2 U h 500Benzene ug/kg 2.6 U 1.7 U 1.9 I i 1,200Bromodichloromethane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 1,500Bromoform ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 48,0002-Butanone (MEK) ug/kg 1260 559 112 16,000,000Carbon Disulfide ug/kg 9.9 I 5.4 I 2.6 I 270,000Carbon Tetrachloride ug/kg 2.2 U 1.5 U 1.3 U 500Chlorobenzene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 120,000Chloroethane ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U 3,900Chloroform ug/kg 2.8 U 1.9 U 1.7 U 400Chloroprene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 16,000,000Dibromochloromethane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 1,5001,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ug/kg 4.1 U 2.7 U 2.4 U 7001,2-Dibromoethane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 100Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U 77,000trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U -1,1-Dichloroethane ug/kg 3.8 U 2.5 U 2.2 U 390,0001,2-Dichloroethane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 5001,1-Dichloroethylene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 95,000trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 53,0001,2-Dichloropropane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 600cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 1,400trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U -1,4-Dioxane ug/kg 85 U 57 U 53 U 23,000Ethylbenzene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 1,500,000Ethyl Methacrylate ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U 630,0002-Hexanone ug/kg 60 24.6 I 9.4 U 24,000Isobutyl Alcohol ug/kg 106 I 67 U 62 U 6,400,000Methacrylonitrile ug/kg 24 U 16 U 14 U 1,000Methyl Bromide ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U 31,000Methyl Chloride ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U 4,000Methyl Iodide ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U -Methyl Methacrylate ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U 19,000,000Methylene Bromide ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 96,000Methylene Chloride ug/kg 23 U 16 U 14 U 17,0004-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ug/kg 76.6 37.2 15.3 I 4,300,000Pentachloroethane ug/kg 11 U 7.1 U 6.2 U -Propionitrile ug/kg 32 U 22 U 19 U -Styrene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 23,0001,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/kg 2.2 U 1.5 U 1.3 U 29,0001,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 700Tetrachloroethylene ug/kg 2.7 U 1.8 U 1.6 U 8,800Toluene ug/kg 21 U 14 U 18.3 I i 7,500,0001,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 730,0001,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 1,400Trichloroethylene ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 6,400Trichlorofluoromethane ug/kg 4.2 U 2.9 U 2.5 U 270,0001,2,3-Trichloropropane ug/kg 2.7 U 1.8 U 1.6 U 60Vinyl Acetate ug/kg 35 U 23 U 20 U 320,000Vinyl Chloride ug/kg 2.1 U 1.4 U 1.2 U 200Xylene (total) ug/kg 6.4 I 3.5 I 2.6 U 130,000

MS Volatiles (SW846 8260B)


MIXEDERD NURF OLD







4-Chloro-3-methyl Phenol ug/kg 24 U 23 U 20 U 600,0002-Chlorophenol ug/kg 26 U 25 U 22 U 130,0002,4-Dichlorophenol ug/kg 24 U 23 U 20 U 190,0002,6-Dichlorophenol ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U 220,0002,4-Dimethylphenol ug/kg 56 U 54 U 47 U 1,300,0002,4-Dinitrophenol ug/kg 210 U 200 U 180 U 110,0004,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ug/kg 85 U 81 U 71 U 8,4002-Methylphenol ug/kg 26 U 24 U 21 U 2,900,0003&4-Methylphenol ug/kg 35 U 33 U 29 U 300,0002-Nitrophenol ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U -4-Nitrophenol ug/kg 210 U 200 U 180 U 560,000Pentachlorophenol ug/kg 210 U 200 U 180 U 7,200Phenol ug/kg 200 I 110 I 26.6 I 500,0002,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ug/kg 25 U 24 U 21 U 2,100,0002,4,5-Trichlorophenol ug/kg 34 U 32 U 28 U 7,700,0002,4,6-Trichlorophenol ug/kg 24 U 23 U 20 U 70,000Acenaphthene ug/kg 23 U 21 U 19 U 2,400,000Acenaphthylene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 1,800,000Acetophenone ug/kg 94.2 I 65.3 I 18 U 3,900,0002-Acetylaminofluorene ug/kg 48 U 46 U 40 U -4-Aminobiphenyl ug/kg 55 U 52 U 46 U -Aniline ug/kg 45 U 43 U 38 U 27,000Anthracene ug/kg 24 U 23 U 20 U 21,000,000Aramite ug/kg 85 U 81 U 71 U -Benzo(a)anthracene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U #Benzo(a)pyrene ug/kg 25 U 24 U 21 U 100Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U #Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/kg 22 U 21 U 18 U 2,500,000Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/kg 28 U 26 U 23 U #Benzyl Alcohol ug/kg 255 195 I 93.1 I 26,000,0004-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ug/kg 22 U 21 U 18 U -Butyl benzyl phthalate ug/kg 64.6 I 40 U 35 U 17,000,0004-Chloroaniline ug/kg 53 U 51 U 45 U 270,000Chlorobenzilate ug/kg 60 U 57 U j 50 U j 3,600bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U -bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ug/kg 25 U 23 U 21 U -2,2'-Oxybis(1-chloropropane) ug/kg 27 U k 25 U 22 U -2-Chloronaphthalene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 5,000,0004-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U -Chrysene ug/kg 22 U 21 U 18 U #Diallate ug/kg 48 U 46 U 40 U 16,000Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ug/kg 27 U 25 U 22 U #Dibenzofuran ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 320,0001,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 880,0001,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U 380,0001,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/kg 28 U 27 U 24 U 6,4003,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ug/kg 50 U 48 U 42 U 2,100Diethyl Phthalate ug/kg 267 I 40 U 35 U 61,000,000Dimethoate ug/kg 21 U l 20 U j 18 U j 13,000p-(Dimethylamine)azobenzene ug/kg 33 U 32 U m 28 U m 7,9007,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene ug/kg 53 U l 50 U 44 U -3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine ug/kg 42 U a 40 U a 35 U a 100A,A-Dimethylphenethylamine ug/kg 420 U 400 U g 350 U g -Dimethyl Phthalate ug/kg 42 U 40 U 35 U 690,000,000

MS Semi-volatiles (SW846 8270D)


MIXEDERD NURF OLD







Di-n-octyl Phthalate ug/kg 42 U 40 U 35 U -Di-n-butyl Phthalate ug/kg 85 U 81 U 71 U -m-Dinitrobenzene ug/kg 22 U 21 U 18 U 5,8002,4-Dinitrotoluene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 1,2002,6-Dinitrotoluene ug/kg 27 U 26 U 23 U 1,200Diphenylamine ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U 2,000,000Disulfoton ug/kg 87 U l 82 U g 72 U g 3,300bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/kg 42 U 40 U 35 U -Ethyl Methanesulfonate ug/kg 22 U 21 U 18 U -Famphur ug/kg 21 U n 20 U a 18 U a 4,500,000Fluoranthene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 3,200,000Fluorene ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U 2,600,000Hexachlorobenzene ug/kg 22 U 21 U 18 U 400Hexachlorobutadiene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 6,200Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ug/kg 42 U 40 U 35 U 100Hexachloroethane ug/kg 25 U 24 U 21 U 38,000Hexachlorophene ug/kg 420 U k 400 U 350 U 2,600Hexachloropropene ug/kg 39 U 37 U 33 U -Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/kg 26 U l 25 U b 22 U b #Isodrin ug/kg 51 U 49 U 43 U -Isophorone ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 540,000Isosafrole ug/kg 46 U 44 U 38 U -Kepone ug/kg 85 U o 81 U a 71 U a -Methapyrilene ug/kg 210 U a 200 U 180 U -3-Methylcholanthrene ug/kg 55 U l 52 U 46 U -Methyl Methanesulfonate ug/kg 28 U 27 U 23 U -2-Methylnaphthalene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U -Methyl Parathion ug/kg 21 U l 20 U j 18 U j 20,000Naphthalene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 55,0001,4-Naphthoquinone ug/kg 42 U p 40 U g 35 U g -1-Naphthylamine ug/kg 45 U 43 U 38 U -2-Naphthylamine ug/kg 56 U 53 U 47 U -2-Nitroaniline ug/kg 49 U 47 U 41 U 21,0003-Nitroaniline ug/kg 25 U 24 U 21 U 24,0004-Nitroaniline ug/kg 61 U 58 U 51 U 17,000Nitrobenzene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 18,0005-Nitro-o-toluidine ug/kg 42 U 40 U j 35 U j -N-Nitrosodiethylamine ug/kg 24 U 23 U 20 U 3N-Nitrosodimethylamine ug/kg 35 U 34 U 30 U 9N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine ug/kg 34 U g 32 U g 28 U g 50N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 80N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U 180,000N-Nitrosomethylethylamine ug/kg 41 U 39 U 34 U 20N-Nitrosomorpholine ug/kg 41 U 39 U 34 U -N-Nitrosopiperidine ug/kg 30 U 28 U 25 U -N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U -4-Nitroquinoline 1-Oxide ug/kg 85 U 81 U 71 U -O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothioate ug/kg 42 U l 40 U 35 U -Parathion ug/kg 21 U l 20 U j 18 U j 500,000Pentachlorobenzene ug/kg 29 U 27 U 24 U 45,000Pentachloronitrobenzene ug/kg 56 U 53 U 47 U 3,300Phenacetin ug/kg 37 U 36 U 31 U -Phenanthrene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 2,200,000p-Phenylenediamine ug/kg 420 U 400 U 350 U 12,000,000Phorate ug/kg 42 U l 40 U j 35 U j 16,0002-Picoline ug/kg 42 U 40 U 35 U -


MIXEDERD NURF OLD







Pronamide ug/kg 53 U 50 U 44 U -Pyrene ug/kg 24 U 23 U 20 U 24,000,000Pyridine ug/kg 85 U 81 U a 71 U a 20,000Safrole ug/kg 42 U 40 U 35 U -1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ug/kg 21 U 20 U 18 U 12,000Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate ug/kg 24 U l 23 U j 20 U j 35,000Thionazin ug/kg 21 U l 20 U j 18 U j -o-Toluidine ug/kg 38 U 36 U 32 U 2,2001,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ug/kg 25 U 24 U 21 U 660,000sym-Trinitrobenzene ug/kg 23 U 22 U 19 U 2,000,000

Aldrin ug/kg 3.3 U 0.62 U 0.57 U 60alpha-BHC ug/kg 3.3 U 0.62 U 0.57 U 100beta-BHC ug/kg 3.1 U 0.57 U 0.53 U 500delta-BHC ug/kg 3.0 U 0.55 U 0.51 U 24,000gamma-BHC (Lindane) ug/kg 10.3 I 6 1.9 700Chlordane ug/kg 32 U 5.9 U 5.5 U 2,800Dieldrin ug/kg 3.0 U 0.55 U 0.51 U 604,4'-DDD ug/kg 4.8 I 0.54 U 0.50 U 4,2004,4'-DDE ug/kg 37.8 30 9.1 2,9004,4'-DDT ug/kg 3.2 U 0.60 U 0.55 U 2,900Endrin ug/kg 5.3 U 0.99 U 0.91 U 25,000Endosulfan sulfate ug/kg 2.8 U 0.52 U 0.48 U -Endrin aldehyde ug/kg 2.5 U 0.45 U 0.42 U -Endosulfan-I ug/kg 2.4 U 0.45 U 0.42 U -Endosulfan-II ug/kg 2.5 U 0.46 U 0.43 U -Heptachlor ug/kg 3.1 U 0.58 U 0.53 U 200Heptachlor epoxide ug/kg 3.1 U 0.57 U 0.53 U 100Methoxychlor ug/kg 4.2 U a 0.78 U a 0.72 U a 420,000Toxaphene ug/kg 160 U 29 U 27 U -

Aroclor 1016 ug/kg 8.5 U 7.8 U 7.2 U -Aroclor 1221 ug/kg 11 U 9.8 U 9.0 U -Aroclor 1232 ug/kg 11 U 9.8 U 9.0 U -Aroclor 1242 ug/kg 8.5 U 7.8 U 7.2 U -Aroclor 1248 ug/kg 8.5 U 7.8 U 7.2 U -Aroclor 1254 ug/kg 8.5 U 7.8 U 7.2 U -Aroclor 1260 ug/kg 8.5 U 7.8 U 7.2 U -

GC/LC Semi-volatiles (SW846 8082A)

GC/LC Semi-volatiles (SW846 8081B)


MIXEDERD NURF OLD







Dimethoate ug/kg 13 U q 13 U q 12 U q 13,000Disulfoton ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U 3,300Ethyl Parathion ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U -Famphur ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U -Methyl Parathion ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U 20,000Phorate ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U 16,000Sulfotep ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U -Thionazin ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U -O,O,O-Triethylphosphorothioate ug/kg 13 U 12 U 11 U -

2,4-D ug/kg 54 U 50 U 45 U 770,0002,4,5-TP (Silvex) ug/kg 5.9 U 5.5 U 5.0 U 660,0002,4,5-T ug/kg 5.5 U 5.0 U 4.6 U 690,000Dinoseb ug/kg 110 U 98 U 89 U b 65,000

Antimony mg/kg 0.67 U 0.55 I r 0.59 I r 27,000Arsenic mg/kg 7.5 2.6 r 2.1 r 2,100Barium mg/kg 32.7 14 12.2 120,000Beryllium mg/kg 0.21 I 0.12 I 0.11 I 120,000Cadmium mg/kg 0.26 U 0.053 U r 0.050 U r 82,000Chromium mg/kg 81.1 31.7 r 26.3 r 210,000Cobalt mg/kg 0.34 I 0.18 I 0.16 I 1,700,000Copper mg/kg 6.8 I 2.1 I r 1.6 I r 150,000Lead mg/kg 13.3 0.11 U r 0.45 I r 400,000Mercury mg/kg 0.030 I 0.029 I 0.020 I 3,000Nickel mg/kg 1.9 I 0.75 I r 0.70 I r 340,00047000000 mg/kg 1.2 U 1.3 I r 0.64 I r 440,000Silver mg/kg 0.083 I 0.091 I 0.041 U 410,000Thallium mg/kg 0.87 I 0.12 U r 0.11 U r 6,100Tin mg/kg 1.5 I 1.1 I 1.0 I 47,000,000Vanadium mg/kg 39.8 16.9 14.1 67,000Zinc mg/kg 12.8 5.1 r 4.1 r 26,000,000


Metals Analysis



MIXEDERD NURF OLD







Solids, Percent % 78.3 83.1 92.9 -

p Associated ICV outside control limits low. Associated CCV outside of control limits low.q Associated BS outside of control limits high, sample was ND.

# = Site concentrations for carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons must be converted to Benzo(a)pyrene equivalents before comparison with the appropriate direct exposure SCTL for Benzo(a)pyrene using the approach described in the February 2005 'Final Technical Report: Development

r Elevated reporting limit(s) due to matrix interference.

g Associated ICV outside control limits low.h Associated ICV and BS outside control limits high, however sample ND.i Results from different vials are not consistent; higher results were reported.j Associated BS recovery outside control limits.k Associated CCV outside of control limits low.l Associated BS outside control limits high. Sample was ND.m Associated BS recovery outside control limits. Insufficient sample for re-extraction.n Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND. Associated CCV outside of control limits low.o Associated Initial calibration outside control limits.

f Associated ICV and BS outside control limits low.

Footnotes:a Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.b Associated CCV outside of control limits high, sample was ND.c Associated ICV and CCV outside control limits high, however sample ND.d Compound was below calibration range in methanol extract. Associated CCV outside of control limits high.e Compound was below calibration range in methanol extract.

General Chemistry


ATTACHMENT 3

RESULTS OF TCLP TESTING

Job Number:

Account:

Project:

Project Number:

Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW ERD NURF MIXED ERD NURF OLD

Lab Sample ID: FA76166-1 FA76166-2 FA76166-3

Date Sampled: 6/18/2020 6/18/2020 6/18/2020

Matrix: Water Water Water


Results of TCLP Testing Conducted on Alum Sludge Collected at the NuRF Facility

Units

Class III Criteria (Ch. 302.530 F.S.)

Fresh WaterNotes

FA76166



Benzene mg/l 0.0031 U 0.0031 U 0.0031 U <0.053 Annual Avg.2-Butanone (MEK) mg/l 0.0678 0.0394 I 0.020 U -Carbon Tetrachloride mg/l 0.0036 U 0.0036 U 0.0036 U <0.01 Annual Avg.Chlorobenzene mg/l 0.0020 U 0.0020 U 0.0020 U <0.97 Annual Avg.Chloroform mg/l 0.0030 U 0.0030 U 0.0030 U <2.3 Annual Avg.1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0026 U 0.0026 U 0.0026 U <1.10 Annual Avg.1,2-Dichloroethane mg/l 0.0031 U 0.0031 U 0.0031 U <1.2 Annual Avg.1,1-Dichloroethylene mg/l 0.0032 U 0.0032 U 0.0032 U <16.0 Annual Avg.Tetrachloroethylene mg/l 0.0022 U 0.0022 U 0.0022 U <0.066 Annual Avg.Trichloroethylene mg/l 0.0035 U 0.0035 U 0.0035 U <0.015 Annual Avg.Vinyl Chloride mg/l 0.0041 U 0.0041 U 0.0041 U <0.003 Annual Avg.

2-Methylphenol mg/l 0.0056 U 0.0056 U 0.0056 U -3,4-Methylphenol mg/l 0.0098 U 0.0098 U 0.0098 U -Pentachlorophenol mg/l 0.050 U a 0.050 U a 0.050 U a <0.0011 Annual Avg.2,4,5-Trichlorophenol mg/l 0.0074 U 0.0074 U 0.0074 U -2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/l 0.0075 U 0.0075 U 0.0075 U <0.0066 Annual Avg.1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/l 0.0050 U 0.0050 U 0.0050 U <1.1 Annual Avg.2,4-Dinitrotoluene mg/l 0.0081 U 0.0081 U 0.0081 U <0.0035 Annual Avg.Hexachlorobenzene mg/l 0.0069 U 0.0069 U 0.0069 U -Hexachlorobutadiene mg/l 0.0050 U 0.0050 U 0.0050 U <0.000018 Annual Avg.Hexachloroethane mg/l 0.016 U 0.016 U 0.016 U <0.00027 Annual Avg.Nitrobenzene mg/l 0.0093 U 0.0093 U 0.0093 U <0.570 Annual Avg.Pyridine mg/l 0.020 U 0.020 U 0.020 U -

gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/l 0.000022 U b 0.000022 U b 0.000022 U b <0.00095 Not to ExceedChlordane mg/l 0.00038 U 0.00038 U 0.00038 U <0.000001 Annual Avg.Endrin mg/l 0.000021 U a 0.000021 U a 0.000021 U a <0.0000023 Not to ExceedHeptachlor mg/l 0.000026 U c 0.000026 U c 0.000026 U c <0.000000025 Annual Avg.Heptachlor epoxide mg/l 0.000020 U c 0.000020 U c 0.000020 U c <0.000000099 Annual Avg.Methoxychlor mg/l 0.000050 U a 0.000050 U a 0.000050 U a <0.000023 Annual Avg.Toxaphene mg/l 0.0021 U 0.0021 U 0.0021 U <0.0000002 Not to Exceed

2,4-D mg/l 0.017 U 0.017 U 0.017 U <13.0 Annual Avg.2,4,5-TP (Silvex) mg/l 0.0013 U 0.0013 U 0.0013 U <0.570 Annual Avg.


MS Semi-volatiles (SW846 8270D)


MS Volatiles (SW846 8260B)

Job Number:

Account:

Project:

Project Number:

Client Sample ID: ERD NURF NEW ERD NURF MIXED ERD NURF OLD

Lab Sample ID: FA76166-1 FA76166-2 FA76166-3

Date Sampled: 6/18/2020 6/18/2020 6/18/2020

Matrix: Water Water Water


Results of TCLP Testing Conducted on Alum Sludge Collected at the NuRF Facility

Units

Class III Criteria (Ch. 302.530 F.S.)

Fresh WaterNotes

FA76166



Arsenic mg/l 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U <0.050 Not to ExceedBarium mg/l 0.73 I 0.19 I 0.28 I <1 Not to ExceedCadmium mg/l 0.0020 U 0.0020 U 0.0020 U 0.0003 Not to ExceedChromium mg/l 0.012 I 0.010 U 0.010 U 0.0862 Not to ExceedLead mg/l 0.011 U 0.011 U 0.011 U 0.0032 Not to ExceedMercury mg/l 0.00050 U 0.00050 U 0.00050 U 0.000012 Not to ExceedSelenium mg/l 0.054 I 0.031 I 0.029 U <0.005 Not to ExceedSilver mg/l 0.0070 U 0.0070 U 0.0070 U <0.00007 Not to Exceed

Metal std. based on hardness of 100 mg/L

Footnotes:a Associated ICV outside control limits high, however sample ND.b Associated CCV outside of control limits high, sample was ND.c Associated ICV and CCV outside control limits high, however sample ND.

Metals Analysis

Attachment E

NuRF Alum Residual

Combined Nurf Alum Residual - cms9files1.revize.com

Documents

Transcript of Combined Nurf Alum Residual - cms9files1.revize.com