4117_A1SandrockCDLF_ Phase3 PTCApp_FID1279925_20190205

Permit to Construct Application
A-1 SANDROCK, INC. C&D LANDFILL
(4117-CDLF-2008) PHASE 3

Submitted to:

NCDEQ Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
217 W Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603

Presented to:

A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406

Prepared By:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
[phone]
woodplc.com

18 October 2018 original
5 February 2019 revisions
Wood Project No.: 6468-18-8009
1
Chao, Ming-tai
From:Garrett, David <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, February 05, 2019 2:14 PM
To:Chao, Ming-tai; Ritter, Christine
Cc:Ronnie Petty
Subject:[External] A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

In response to Ming Chao’s comments presented in his email message of 1-28-2019, I have prepared the following
responses in red. Please also note I have sent a transfer package with the pdf of the application (~40M file), edited in
response to all comments thus received. Thank you.

. . . Several comments (most are typos/inconsistent data) are observed which stated below:

1. Table 1-B in Section 1.3.2 of the latest version of the Facility Plan (received on 01/14/19) states that the waste
footprint of Cell 3A & 3B are 3.77 acres and 3.83 acres, respectively; but the drawing S1-Facility Plan (received on
01/14/19) shows the waste footprint of Cell 3A & 3B are 3.34 acres and 4.26
acres. Please provide the consistent data.

The Facility Plan (Drawing S1) has been corrected to reflect the values given in Table 1B of the report.

2. Regarding the request approval of the modification to Erosion and Sediment Control Plan from NC
Land Quality Section (LQS) or Guilford County which will cover the operations of non-disposal units A
through E, please provide the status of the approval processes.

i. Has the modification document submitted to the LQS yet?

The mine modification document has not been submitted, as discussions are ongoing to determine jurisdiction and
future resolution of the mine permit.

ii. What is the reasonable time frame to obtain an approval from the authorized agency?

A-1 Sandrock has initiated an evaluation and update of it E&S plan for submittal to whichever agency (LQS or Guilford
County) will have jurisdiction, once determined. We anticipate this determination will be made during the week of
February 4, 2019. A submittal will ready by the end of February 2019, and it anticipated that the agency can review and
approve the submittal within 30 days following the submittal, i.e., first of April 2019. Please note that Guilford County
has been inspecting the activities along the “north” stream, both on-site and off-site (by others), which is the receptor
for Areas A – D.

3. Gas vent pipes and stones stated in Table 4B are shown on Detail G on Drawing EC3. Please correct
typo.

Table 4B has been corrected.

4. (Section 5.3) “All these areas have been approved for disturbance and …” The statement in the last
paragraph of this section is questionable because the approved erosion and sediment control permit for
the non-disposal units – Areas A through E is not covered by the existing stormwater permit
2
(NCG020000-Certification No. NCG020633) which was issued for the mining permit (Permit No. 41-
22), please refer the Section 5.10.2 of the Operations Plan & Comment No. 2.

During the original permitting of the facility, E&S measures for all areas of the site (including Areas A – E) were designed
and approved (by LQS) based on a “bare earth” design assumption. This design condition produces the most
runoff. The measures were installed and inspected by LQS. Measures for Areas A – C were reconstructed to original
specifications ca. 2017. The stormwater permit pertains to the mining operation and will be renewed to apply to the
mulching operations and soil storage activities. The quoted text has been removed from Section 5.3.

5. (Section 5.4) The storage volume of each Areas D & E (35,426 CY & 54,572 CY) is different from
those shown on Drawing S1.

Section 5.4 and Drawing S1 have been checked for consistency and corrected.

6. (Section 5.4.1) The last sentence of this subsection states that “Finished materials shall be removed (or turned) at
least QUARTERLY…) The same statements for a quarterly turning frequency are mentioned
in other Sections (Section 5.9.1) in the Operations Plan.” But the turning frequency in Section 5.7 is
semi-annually. Please clarify.

All references to storage times and turning frequencies have been revised to “semi-annual.”

7. (Section 5.10) The soil stockpiles at Area D & E have not stabilized by temporary seeding or any
vegetation which was noted in January 07, 2019 site visit. The statement in Section 5.10 shall be implemented. For the
period outside the growing season, a trap or rain cover should be used to prevent
stockpiled soil from washing out by precipitation – rain or snow.

Per Section 5.10, A-1 Sandrock plans to stabilize the temporary stockpiles with a ground cover and install runoff
diversions to existing and/or future E&S measures in the immediate future. For the time being, plans are to reconstruct
the earlier permitted measures to original specifications. New E&S measures for Areas D and E are being evaluated and
will be presented to the agency of jurisdiction if upgrades are deemed needed. Section 5.10 has been amended to
include the use of temporary rain sheets (tarps) in addition to vegetative cover and wood mulch as recommended
measures to curtail erosion.

8. (Section 6.4.7) The turning frequency and the referenced section – Section 5.5 are inconsistent with
those stated in the other section in the Operations Plan. Please correct typos.

Refer to the response to Comment #6.

Please note our @AmecFW email addresses are being replaced with @woodplc addresses.

David Garrett, PG, PE
919-418-4375 (mobile)
919-765-0070 (direct office)

Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, NC 27703 TEL: [phone]

3

This message is the property of John Wood Group PLC and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates and is intended only for the
named recipient(s). Its contents (including any attachments) may be confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected
from disclosure by law. Unauthorized use, copying, distribution or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful and is strictly
prohibited. We assume no responsibility to persons other than the intended named recipient(s) and do not accept liability
for any errors or omissions which are a result of email transmission. If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately by reply email to the sender and confirm that the original message and any attachments and copies
have been destroyed and deleted from your system.

If you do not wish to receive future unsolicited commercial electronic messages from us, please forward this email to:
[e-mail] and include “Unsubscribe” in the subject line. If applicable, you will continue to receive
invoices, project communications and similar factual, non-commercial electronic communications.

Please click http://www.woodplc.com/email-disclaimer for notices and company information in relation to emails
originating in the UK, Italy or France.

As a recipient of an email from a John Wood Group Plc company, your contact information will be on our systems and we
may hold other personal data about you such as identification information, CVs, financial information and information
contained in correspondence. For more information on our privacy practices and your data protection rights, please see
our privacy notice at https://www.woodplc.com/policies/privacy-notice

CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page i
OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. vii
OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION .................................................................................... viii
SITE LOCATION DATA ............................................................................................................ viii
1.0 FACILITY PLAN
1.1 Regulatory Summary ........................................................................................................ 10
1.2 Facility Drawings ............................................................................................................. 10
1.2.1 Facility Layout .................................................................................................... 10
1.2.2 Operational Sequence .......................................................................................... 10
1.3 Facility Report .................................................................................................................. 11
1.3.1 Waste Stream ....................................................................................................... 11
1.3.2 Landfill Capacity ................................................................................................. 11
1.3.3 Special Engineering Features .............................................................................. 14
1.3.4 Soil Volume Analysis .......................................................................................... 14
1.4 Processing and Temporary Storage Areas ........................................................................ 15
2.0 ENGINEERING REPORT
2.1 Engineering Report ........................................................................................................... 16
2.1.1 Analytical Methods ............................................................................................. 16
2.1.2 Identified Critical Conditions .............................................................................. 16
2.1.3 Technical References .......................................................................................... 18
2.1.4 Location Restriction Demonstrations .................................................................. 18
2.2 Construction Materials and Practices ............................................................................... 18
2.3 Design Hydrogeologic Report .......................................................................................... 19
2.4 Engineering Drawings ...................................................................................................... 19
2.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 19
2.4.2 Grading Plan ........................................................................................................ 19
2.4.3 Stormwater Segregation ..................................................................................... 19
2.4.4 Final Cap System ................................................................................................ 19
2.4.5 Temporary and Permanent E&SC ....................................................................... 19
2.4.6 Vertical Separation .............................................................................................. 20
2.4.7 Other Features ..................................................................................................... 20
2.5 Specific Engineering Calculations ................................................................................... 20
2.5.1 Settlement ............................................................................................................ 20
2.5.2 Slope Stability ..................................................................................................... 21
2.5.2.1 Deep-seated stability ........................................................................... 22
2.5.2.2 Veneer Stability................................................................................... 23
2.5.3 Final Slope Ratios ............................................................................................... 25
3.0 CONTRUCTION PLAN
3.1 Horizontal Separation ....................................................................................................... 26
3.1.1 Property Lines ..................................................................................................... 26
3.1.2 Residences and Wells .......................................................................................... 26
3.1.3 Surface Waters .................................................................................................... 26
3.1.4 Existing Landfill Units ........................................................................................ 26
3.2 Vertical Separation ........................................................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Settlement ............................................................................................................ 26
3.2.2 Soil Consistency .................................................................................................. 26
3.3 Survey Control Benchmarks ............................................................................................ 27
3.4 Location Coordinates ....................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Landfill Subgrade ............................................................................................................. 27
CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page ii
3.5.1 Subgrade Inspection Requirement ....................................................................... 27
3.5.2 Division Notification ........................................................................................... 28
3.5.3 Vertical Separation Compliance .......................................................................... 28
3.6 Special Engineering Features ........................................................................................... 28
3.7 Sedimentation and Erosion Control.................................................................................. 28
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
4.1 General Provisions ........................................................................................................... 29
4.1.1 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 29
4.1.1.1 Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) ............................................. 29
4.1.1.2 Construction Quality Control (CQC) .................................................. 29
4.1.1.3 CQA Certification Document ............................................................. 30
4.1.1.4 Discrepancies Between Documents .................................................... 30
4.1.2 Responsibilities and Authorities .......................................................................... 30
4.1.2.1 Owner .................................................................................................. 30
4.1.2.2 Engineer .............................................................................................. 30
4.1.2.3 Contractor ........................................................................................... 31
4.1.2.4 CQA Testing Firm .............................................................................. 31
4.1.3 Control vs. Records Testing ................................................................................ 31
4.1.3.1 Control Testing ................................................................................... 31
4.1.3.2 Record Testing .................................................................................... 31
4.1.4 Modifications and Amendment ........................................................................... 32
4.1.5 Miscellaneous ...................................................................................................... 32
4.1.5.1 Units .................................................................................................... 32
4.1.5.2 References ........................................................................................... 32
4.2 CQA Plan ......................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.1 Responsibilities and Authorities .......................................................................... 32
4.2.1.1 Compaction Criteria ............................................................................ 32
4.2.1.2 Testing Criteria ................................................................................... 33
4.2.1.3 Material Evaluation ............................................................................. 33
4.2.1.4 Subgrade Approval ............................................................................. 33
4.2.2 General Earthwork Construction ......................................................................... 34
4.2.2.1 Construction Monitoring ..................................................................... 34
4.2.2.2 Control Tests ....................................................................................... 34
4.2.2.3 Record Tests ........................................................................................ 34
4.2.2.4 Record Test Failure ............................................................................. 34
4.2.2.5 Judgment Testing ................................................................................ 35
4.2.2.6 Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 35
4.2.3 Inspection Activities ............................................................................................ 35
4.2.3.1 Material Approval ............................................................................... 35
4.2.3.2 Final Cover Systems Installation ........................................................ 37
4.2.3.3 Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 37
4.3 CQA Meetings .................................................................................................................. 37
4.3.1 Project Initiation CQA Meeting .......................................................................... 37
4.3.2 CQA Progress Meetings ...................................................................................... 38
4.3.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meetings ............................................................... 38
4.4 Documentation and Reporting .......................................................................................... 38
4.4.1 Periodic CQA Reports ......................................................................................... 39
4.4.2 CQA Progress Reports ........................................................................................ 40
4.4.3 CQA Photographic Reporting ............................................................................. 40
4.4.4 Documentation of Deficiencies ........................................................................... 41
4.4.5 Design or Specification Changes ........................................................................ 41
CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page iii
4.5 Final CQA Report ............................................................................................................ 41
4.6 Storage of Records ........................................................................................................... 42
4.7 Protection of Finished Surfaces ........................................................................................ 43
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
5.1 General Conditions ........................................................................................................... 48
5.1.1 Facility Description ............................................................................................. 48
5.1.2 Location and Surroundings ................................................................................. 48
5.1.3 Geographic Service Area ..................................................................................... 48
5.1.4 Hours of Operation .............................................................................................. 49
5.1.5 Hours of Operation .............................................................................................. 49
5.2 Contact Information ......................................................................................................... 49
5.2.1 Emergencies ........................................................................................................ 49
5.2.2 A-1 Sandrock Administrative Offices ................................................................. 49
5.2.3 North Carolina DEQ (Winston-Salem Regional Office) ...................................... 49
5.3 Permitted Activities .......................................................................................................... 50
5.4 Description of Facilities ................................................................................................... 51
5.4.1 Processing Facility .............................................................................................. 51
5.4.2 CDLF (Phase 1) ................................................................................................... 52
5.5 Facility Drawings ............................................................................................................. 52
5.6 Staff Responsibilities ........................................................................................................ 53
5.7 Inspections and Maintenance ........................................................................................... 53
5.8 Access Control ................................................................................................................. 54
5.8.1 Physical Restraints .............................................................................................. 54
5.8.2 Security................................................................................................................ 55
5.8.3 All-Weather Access ............................................................................................. 55
5.8.4 Traffic .................................................................................................................. 55
5.8.5 Anti-Scavenging Policy ....................................................................................... 55
5.8.6 Signage ................................................................................................................ 55
5.8.7 Communications .................................................................................................. 55
5.9 Fire and Safety.................................................................................................................. 55
5.9.1 Fire Control ......................................................................................................... 56
5.9.2 Personal Safety .................................................................................................... 56
5.10 Other Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................................... 57
5.10.1 Sedimentation and Erosion Control .................................................................... 57
5.10.2 Water Quality (Storm Water) Protection ............................................................. 57
5.11 Miscellaneous Requirements ............................................................................................ 58
5.11.1 Minimizing Surface Water Contact ..................................................................... 58
5.11.2 Processing Facility Operation over the CDLF .................................................... 58
5.11.3 Equipment Maintenance ...................................................................................... 59
5.11.4 Utilities ................................................................................................................ 59
5.11.5 Vector Control ..................................................................................................... 59
5.11.6 Air Quality Criteria ............................................................................................. 59
5.11.7 Litter Control ....................................................................................................... 60
5.12 Operating Record ............................................................................................................. 60
5.13 Annual Report .................................................................................................................. 62
5.14 Contingency Plan ............................................................................................................. 62
5.14.1 Hot Loads Contingency ....................................................................................... 62
5.14.2 Hazardous Waste Contingency ........................................................................... 62
5.14.3 Severe Weather Contingency .............................................................................. 63
5.14.3.1 Ice Storms ........................................................................................... 63
5.14.3.2 Heavy Rains ........................................................................................ 63
CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page iv
5.14.3.3 Electrical Storms ................................................................................. 64
5.14.3.4 Windy Conditions ............................................................................... 64
5.14.3.5 Violent Storms .................................................................................... 64
6.0 PROCESING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
6.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 65
6.2 Acceptable Wastes ........................................................................................................... 65
6.3 Prohibited Wastes ............................................................................................................. 65
6.4 Waste Processing .............................................................................................................. 66
6.4.1 Waste Receiving and Screening .......................................................................... 66
6.4.2 LCID Processing ................................................................................................. 67
6.4.3 C&D Processing .................................................................................................. 67
6.4.4 Stockpile Guidance.............................................................................................. 68
6.4.5 Processing of Finished Goods ............................................................................. 68
6.4.6 Non-Processed Material Storage ......................................................................... 69
6.4.7 Processed Material Storage ................................................................................. 69
6.4.8 Asphalt Shingling Storage for Recycling ............................................................ 69
6.5 Contingency Plan ............................................................................................................. 70
6.6 Annual Reporting ............................................................................................................. 70
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
7.1 Waste Acceptance Criteria ............................................................................................... 72
7.1.1 Permitted Wastes ................................................................................................. 72
7.1.2 Asbestos .............................................................................................................. 72
7.1.3 Wastewater Treatment Sludge ............................................................................. 72
7.2 Waste Exclusions ............................................................................................................. 72
7.3 Waste Handling Procedures ............................................................................................. 73
7.3.1 Waste Receiving and Inspection ......................................................................... 73
7.3.2 Disposal of Rejected Wastes ............................................................................... 74
7.3.3 Waste Disposal Procedures ................................................................................. 74
7.3.4 Spreading and Compaction ................................................................................. 75
7.3.5 Special Wastes: Asbestos Management ............................................................. 76
7.4 Cover Material .................................................................................................................. 76
7.4.1 Periodic Cover ..................................................................................................... 76
7.4.2 Interim Cover ...................................................................................................... 77
7.4.3 Final Cover .......................................................................................................... 77
7.5 Survey for Compliance ..................................................................................................... 78
7.5.1 Height Monitoring ............................................................................................... 78
7.5.2 Annual Survey ..................................................................................................... 79
7.6 Contingency Plan ............................................................................................................. 79
7.7 Annual Reporting ............................................................................................................. 79
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
8.1 Summary of Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................ 82
8.1.1 Final Cap ............................................................................................................. 82
8.1.2 Construction Requirements ................................................................................. 82
8.1.3 Alternative Cap Design ....................................................................................... 82
8.1.4 Division Notifications ......................................................................................... 82
8.1.5 Required Closure Schedule ................................................................................. 83
8.1.6 Recordation ......................................................................................................... 83
8.2 Closure Plan ..................................................................................................................... 83
8.2.1 Final Cap Installation .......................................................................................... 83
CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page v
8.2.1.1 Final Elevations................................................................................... 83
8.2.1.2 Final Slope Ratios ............................................................................... 83
8.2.1.3 Final Cover Section ............................................................................. 84
8.2.1.4 Final Cover Installation ....................................................................... 84
8.2.1.5 Final Cover Vegetation ....................................................................... 85
8.2.1.6 Documentation .................................................................................... 86
8.2.2 Maximum Area/Volume Subject to Closure ....................................................... 86
8.2.3 Closure Schedule ................................................................................................. 86
8.2.4 Closure Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 86
8.3 Post-Closure Plan ............................................................................................................. 88
8.3.1 Monitoring and Maintenance .............................................................................. 88
8.3.1.1 Term of Post-Closure Care ................................................................. 88
8.3.1.2 Maintenance of Closure Systems ........................................................ 88
8.3.1.3 Landfill Gas Monitoring ..................................................................... 88
8.3.1.4 Ground Water Monitoring .................................................................. 89
8.3.1.5 Record Keeping................................................................................... 89
8.3.1.6 Certification of Completion ................................................................ 89
8.3.2 Responsible Party Contact................................................................................... 91
8.3.3 Planned Uses of Property .................................................................................... 91
8.3.4 Post-Closure Cost Estimate ................................................................................. 91
9.0 FACILITY MONITORING PLAN
9.1 Summary of Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................ 92
9.2 Ground Water Monitoring ................................................................................................ 92
9.2.1 Monitoring System Requirements ....................................................................... 93
9.2.2 Background Water Quality .................................................................................. 94
9.2.3 Point of Compliance Water Quality .................................................................... 94
9.2.4 Sampling and Analysis Procedures ..................................................................... 94
9.2.5 Detection-phase Monitoring Parameters ............................................................. 94
9.2.6 Sampling Frequency ............................................................................................ 94
9.2.7 Water Level Elevations ....................................................................................... 94
9.2.8 Reporting ............................................................................................................. 94
9.2.9 Source Demonstration ......................................................................................... 95
9.2.10 Monitoring Well Design ...................................................................................... 95
9.2.11 Monitoring Well Layout ...................................................................................... 95
9.2.12 Alternative Monitoring Systems ......................................................................... 95
9.2.13 Assessment Monitoring ....................................................................................... 95
9.3 Surface Water Monitoring ................................................................................................ 96
9.4 Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control Plan ....................................................................... 96
9.5 Adherence to Waste Acceptance ...................................................................................... 96
9.6 Plan Preparation and Certification .................................................................................... 96
10.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ......................................................................................................... 92
11.0 CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................... 92
CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page vi
TABLES Refer to the in-text tables referenced by page number
1A Waste Density Calculations ............................................................................................... 12
1B Capacity Projections .......................................................................................................... 13
1C Borrow Soil Resources ...................................................................................................... 14
1D Soil Volume Analysis ........................................................................................................ 14
2A Design Soil Properties ....................................................................................................... 23
2B Seismic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 23
3A Benchmark Data ................................................................................................................ 27
3B Site Center Coordinates ..................................................................................................... 27
4A CQA Testing Schedule for General Earthwork ................................................................. 44
4B CQA Testing Schedule for Drainage and Final Cover ..................................................... 45
4C CQA Testing Schedule for Compacted Soil Barrier ........................................................ 46
4D Reference List of ASTM Test Methods ........................................................................... 47
6A Prohibited Waste at the Processing Facility ..................................................................... 71
7A Prohibited Waste at the CDLF Unit ................................................................................. 80
8A.1 Estimated Final Closure Costs for Phase 1 – 4 ................................................................. 87
8A.2 Annual Inflation Multipliers .............................................................................................. 87
8B Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule ...................................................... 90
8C Estimated Post-Closure Costs for Phase 1 – 4 ................................................................... 91
10 Summary of Closure and Post-Closure Costs ................................................................... 97
DRAWINGS Refer to tabbed section
APPENDICES
1 Property Description, Title and Franchise Amendment (Guilford County records)
2 Stability, Settlement and Volume Calculations
3 Sedimentation and Erosion Control Calculations
4 Operation Plan Information
4A Waste Screening Form
4B Fire Notification Form
4C Hazardous Waste Responders
4D Asphalt Shingles Recycling
5 Ground Water Monitoring Plan
6 Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan
7 Design Hydrogeologic Investigation
OVERVIEW
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page vii
This Facility Plan update was prepared in accordance with North Carolina Solid Waste
Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0531, et seq., in support of a Permit to Construct (PTC) application
for Phase 3 of Permit 4117-CDLF-2008. This work modifies the existing permit, which
was renewed in August 2015 (Phase 2A) and August 2017 (Phase 2B). Phases 1 and 2 are
now approaching interim bench grades. Side slopes are covered with a vegetated interim
soil cover. No areas have yet received final cover and been certified closed.
The Facility requires additional disposal capacity and desires to construct and operate
Phase 3 within the contiguous permitted footprint. Phase 3 will be developed in two stages,
Phase 3A to the north and Phase 3B to the south. Phase 3A is rough graded under the
provision of the mining permit and is ready for fine grading and certification, akin to the
sequencing used for Phases 1 and 2. A stockpile of soil presently occupies the Phase 3B
footprint. The Owner/Operator currently desires a Permit to Construct (PTC) for Phase 3,
soon followed by a request for a Permit to Operate (PTO) for Phase 3A.
A Design Hydrogeologic evaluation of Phase 3 was performed in 2018. Earlier studies
include a Site Suitability study and Design Hydrogeologic evaluations for Phases 1 and 2.
NCDEQ-approved Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) control measures are in place and are
functioning as planned. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Landfill Gas Monitoring
Plans have been updated to incorporate new regulatory requirements. There are no known
adverse conditions attributable to the landfill indicated by the monitoring programs.
The C&D Landfill is the reclamation stage of a former mining operation (North Carolina
Mining Permit #41-22). Active mining activities have now ended, and the reclamation is
underway. The facility was developed in three contiguous stages (Phases 1, 2 and 3) that
correspond to the three ground disturbing phases of the CDLF footprint, with targeted base
grades that meet the regulatory minimum vertical buffer requirements. A permitted fourth
phase of the CDLF (Phase 4) is a vertical expansion over the first three phases.
On a historical note, recycling activities originally were conducted within the CDLF
footprint, i.e., adjacent to the working face or in future (unbuilt) cell areas. Soils left over
from incremental cell construction were also temporarily stockpiled within the future cell
areas. Over time, the recycling has taken on new characteristics, requiring more room
dedicated to these activities and relocation from within the CDLF footprint for safety
concerns and to make way for construction of the final two cells (Phase 3). Three new
Treatment and Processing (T&P) areas have been designated for concrete and LCID,
labeled Areas A, B and C on facility plan Drawing S1. The facility plan also shows new
Areas D and E, designated for temporary storage of operational soil.
OVERVIEW
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page viii
The facility is permitted to accept up to 300 tons per day of C&D and LCID debris as
defined in the solid waste rules. Recycling of certain portions of the waste stream are
conducted at the working face and inactive areas within the footprint. Waste intake has
been variable due to regional economic conditions. The service area is defined as all
counties within and touching a 50-mile radius. The Franchise Agreement with Guilford
County requires recycling a minimum 10 percent of the waste stream.
This document includes an updated Closure/Post-Closure Plan and Financial Assurance
calculations, which have been updated from that submitted in 2017 to reflect the increased
footprint and the 2018 inflation factor of 1.018 furnished by NCDEQ Division of Waste
Management (the “Division”), Solid Waste Section (the “Section”). Within this document
are the following updates, prepared in accordance with Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0535:
•A Facility Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0537
•An Engineering Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0539
•An Operation Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0542
•A Closure and Post-Closure Plan prepared in accordance with Rule
.0543, which incorporates a Construction Quality Assurance Plan as
required by Rules .0543 and .0541
•A Monitoring Plan prepared in accordance with Rule .0544.
OWNER/OPERATOR INFORMATION
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – Owner/Operator
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Operator/Operator
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406 Tel. [phone]
SITE LOCATION DATA
LATITUDE 35.98745 N
LONGITUDE -79.84639 E
PARCEL NUMBER 12-03-0185-0-0739-W-007
Deed Date 1/17/1996 Guilford County, NC
Deed Book 4378 Deed Page 0198
Plat Book 149 Plat Page 93
OVERVIEW
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page ix
Figure 1 – Surrounding Properties (Guilford County GIS)
1.0 CDLF FACILITY PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0537)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 10/15/2018
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 10
1.1 Regulatory Summary
15A NCAC 13B .0531 et seq. require a comprehensive facility plan that identifies future
development in phases and sub-phases that correspond approximately to 5-year operational
capacities. The facility plan must identify and show all relevant permitted Solid Waste units
and activities conducted (or proposed) at the site. The grading plan requirements emphasize
vertical separation and minimum subgrade soil type requirements.
The Phase 3 base grades meet or exceed the 4-foot minimum vertical separation requirement to
groundwater and bedrock; thus, no liner or leachate collection system is required under these
rules. Subgrade soil types that will be exposed via excavation and used in the compacted fill
sections are anticipated to exhibit a mix of finer soil types, e.g., ML, MH, CL, CH, SM and
mixed SM-ML classifications. Because of this, subgrade permeability is expected to be
relatively low providing the soils are reworked and compacted (see Section 3.2.2).
1.2 Facility Drawings
1.2.1 Facility Layout
Drawing S1 shows the Facility Plan with approved phasing and updated volume estimates. The
C&D recycling activities take place within the approved CDLF footprint, which are moved
around as needed to remain near the working face. Current temporary storage areas outside the
CDLF footprint are shown near the scale house, north of an unnamed tributary. Temporary
storage areas will be developed to the southeast of the footprint.
Drawings E1 and E2 depict current conditions and base grades for Phase 3. Drawings E3
through E5 show interim operational grades (top of waste) for Phase 3, which were used in
volume calculations. Drawing E6 show permitted final grades (top of waste) for Phase 4,
consistent with the original permitting. Drawing EC1 shows erosion control measures for the
final cover, also consistent with the original permitting. Construction details are depicted in
Drawings EC2 through EC5. Hydrogeologic cross sections are presented in Drawings X1
and X2. Locations for groundwater and landfill gas monitoring are depicted in Drawing M1.
1.2.2 Operational Sequence
Phase 3 is being developed in the western third (approximately) of the CDLF footprint. Grading
for this phase involves removing stockpiled fill soil (remnant from earlier construction) and
making grade cuts in the range of 10 to 15 feet (±) in depth, to reach the approved base grades.
The operational sequence for Phase 3 is shown as three sub-phases, 3A to the north, 3B to the
1.0 CDLF FACILITY PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0537)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 11
south, and 3C as an overlay to bring the upper surfaces to approximately El. 840. A center berm
and ditches will be used to separate drainage from north to south. Fill operations will progress
from north to south, i.e. from high ground toward low ground, to maintain the drainage pattern.
Operational cover will be used to minimize water from contacting the waste.
Interim side slopes will be maintained at 3H:1V while upper surfaces will be graded at
approximately 2% to 5% slopes. Exterior slopes will be closed in increments as the slopes come
to grade. Interim cover will be placed on exterior slopes until approximately 10 acres of slope
is reached, followed by final cover. Operational procedures are discussed in Sections 5.0 – 7.0.
1.3 Facility Report
1.3.1 Waste Stream
The following data is updated from the original (2002) Facility Report with data furnished to
Guilford County in 2018 renegotiation of the Franchise Agreement and the (2017) Facility
Report. Supporting data, e.g., population and growth projection, are presented in Appendix 1.
The geographic area to be served by the franchisee may include the following counties
within (and touching) a fifty-mile radius from the site: Guilford, Randolph,
Rockingham, Alamance, Forsyth, Davidson, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin, Caswell, Person,
Orange, Durham, Chatham, Moore, Montgomery, Stanley, Rowan, Cabarrus, Lee and
Davie. The bulk of the wastes are expected to be derived from an 8-county region
bordering Guilford County. The annual waste intake is anticipated to vary from 60,000
to 80,000 tons per year – a daily intake up to 300 tons per day – 10% of the waste stream
will be recycled. The facility will accept C&D and LCID waste (see Section 7.1).
1.3.2 Landfill Capacity
A volumetric analysis originally performed in 2002 using an AutoCAD Digital Terrain Model
(DTM) was recently confirmed using the method of slices. Based on the grading plan and final
waste contours (Drawing E6), the landfill has a volumetric capacity of 2,240,000 cubic yards.
Subtracting the final cover (132,677 cy) and assuming 10% of the airspace is lost due to periodic
cover (consuming 224,000 c.y.), the net disposal capacity is 1,883,323 c.y., or approximately
1,280,660 tons based on 0.68 ton/cy (see Table 1A). The landfill receives an average of 300
tpd and operates 5.5 days per week, 280 working days per year. The estimated annual airspace
consumption is 100,800 cubic yards.1 Based on the current volume projections and
operational history, the landfill has an estimated 12 to 15 years of remaining capacity.
1 An average waste density of 0.5 tcy was used in original estimates of landfill capacity and service life.
1.0 CDLF FACILITY PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0537)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 12
Following the first six months of operations, during late 2009, the tonnage and density was
recorded as 3,237 tons and 0.61 tons/c.y., respectively (for 5,396 c.y.). Later, after the first four
years of operation, an in-situ density of 0.68 tons/c.y. was calculated, shown below:
Table 1A
WASTE DENSITY CALCULATIONS
Year ending June 30 Tonnage Volume
2010 30,555.25 tons 44,934 cubic yards
2011 32,847.70 48,305
2012 40,479.24 59,528
2013 94,618.71 139,145
Phase 1 in-situ data 198,500.90 tons 291,912 cubic yards
Calculated in-situ density = 0.68 tcy
The higher in-situ density over time is attributed to compression of the wastes.
A tabulation of the disposal capacity and life expectancy by phase follows.
1.0 CDLF FACILITY PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0537)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 13
Table 1B
CAPACITY PROJECTIONS
PHASE 1 Status: Completed 1A 1B 1C
New Ground Footprint Acreage, ac 2.63 4.77 3.98
Interim Capacities (Sub-Phases) 2 62,370 cy 186,242 cy 221,720 cy
Interim Elevations (Sub-Phases) EL. 830 EL. 820 EL. 812
Surveyed Volume (Phase 1 only) 2, 3 ........................................................................ 470,332 cy
Cumulative Footprint ............................................................................................... 11.38 acres 1
PHASE 2 Status: Completed 2A 2B
New Ground Footprint Acreage, ac 4.27 2.25
Interim Capacities (Sub-Phases), cy 2 250,383 357,809
Interim Elevations (Sub-Phases) 4 EL. 820 EL. 820
Projected Volume (Phase 2 only) ............................................................................. 608,192 cy
Cumulative Capacity 2 .............................................................................................. 1,078,524 cy
Cumulative Footprint (through Phase 2) .................................................................. 17.90 acres
PHASE 3 Status: Current PTC 3A (Int. 1) 3B (Int. 2) 3C (Int. 3)
New Ground Footprint Acreage, ac 3.77 3.83 05
Interim Capacities (Sub-Phases), cy 2 210,910 152,184 278,632
Interim Elevations (Sub-Phases) 4 EL. 830 EL. 810 EL. 840
Projected Volume (Phase 3 only) ............................................................................. 641,726 cy
Cumulative Capacity 2 .............................................................................................. 1,720,250 cy
Cumulative Footprint (through Phase 3) .................................................................. 25.50 acres
PHASE 4 Status: Future
Permit Footprint (All Phases) ................................................................................... 25.50 acres 1
Interim Capacity (Phase 4) 2, 5 .................................................................................. 519,750 cy
Cumulative Capacity 2, 6 ........................................................................................... 2,240,000 cy
Final Elevation ......................................................................................................... El. 904
Remaining Life Expectancy7 .................................................................................... 12 to 15 years
1 Footprint shown in Franchise Drawings and original permitting is 25.50 acres. The “As-Built” drawing for Phases
1A – 1C, and supporting calculations presented in a letter to the SWS dated 2-14-2005, describes the footprint as
“11 acres.” The permit issued in 2006 showed 8.18 acres, which is erroneous but carried through to the present.
Volumes are by survey and are represented as accurate.
2 Includes Final Cap System and Operational Cover.
3 Includes documented losses due to base grade adjustments to accommodate rock encountered during grading.
4 As shown on drawings for estimation purposes, operational elevations may vary.
5 Vertical Expansion – not actual ground disturbance (does not add to total footprint area).
6 Consistent with the February 2004 Permit to Construct – Phase 4 volume was adjusted to match permit issue.
7 Based on Phase 3 and Phase 4 airspace (1,161,476 cy) and an annual airspace consumption of 100,800 cy per year,
giving 11.5 years. Remaining volume in Phases 1 and 2 are undetermined.
1.0 CDLF FACILITY PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0537)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 14
1.3.3 Special Engineering Features
No seeps, springs, soft ground or other deleterious conditions were identified in the site
characterization studies. As such, no special engineering features are required.
1.3.4 Soil Volume Analysis
The following soil data was developed using the airspace calculations (discussed above) and
the permitted grading plan. Demonstrated below, the Total Available Borrow (438,955 cy)
shown in Table 1C exceeds the remaining Total Required Soil (248,825 cy) shown in Table 1D.
Thus, there is sufficient soil available to complete Phases 1 through 4.
Table 1C
BORROW SOIL RESOURCES1
Area (acres) Borrow volume (yd3)
Stockpile --- 125,000
Adjacent Sites 13.9 313,955
Total Available Borrow 438,955
1 The borrow site consists of lots adjacent to the facility, not within the facility boundary, but directly accessible
with off-road equipment. This estimate includes the following properties: 2103 Bishop Rd, 2097 Bishop Rd, 2095
Bishop Rd, 2093 Bishop Rd, 2085 Bishop Rd, 2087 Bishop Rd, 2111 Bishop Rd, Greensboro, NC 27406. These
properties are wholly owned by A-1 Sandrock, Inc. but are not planned to be added to the facility.
Table 1D
SOIL VOLUME ANALYSIS
Breakout soil quantities for all Phases (included above) are follows:
Phase 1 Proposed Airspace 470,332 cy
Final Cover Required* (3' x 11.38 ac) 59,211 cy
Intermediate Cover (10% Volume) 47,033 cy
Phase 2 Proposed Airspace 608,192 cy
Final Cover Required* (3' x 6.52 ac) 33,923 cy
Intermediate Cover (10% Volume) 60,819 cy
Phase 3 Proposed Airspace 641,726 cy
Final Cover Required* (3' x 7.6 ac) 39,543 cy
Intermediate Cover (10% Volume) 64,173 cy
Phase 4 Proposed Airspace 519,750 cy
Final Cover Required** (3' x 0.0 ac) 0 cy
Intermediate Cover (10% Volume) 51,975 cy
Continued
1.0 CDLF FACILITY PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0537)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 15
Summary Total Proposed Airspace 2,240,000 cy
Required Final Cover (25.5 acres)* 132,677 cy
Required Intermediate Cover (10% Volume) 224,000 cy
Total Required Soil (for entire landfill) 356,677 cy
*Includes 15% shrinkage on compacted clay layer **Cover volume included in Phases 1-3
Whereas Phases 1 and 2 are operationally complete, the intermediate cover volumes of soil need
not be included in an estimate of the remaining soil requirements for operation of Phases 3 and
4, and final closure of the entire footprint. Considering this aspect, the remaining soil needs are
as follows:
Phase 1 Final Cover (11.38 ac) 59,211 cy
Phase 2 Final Cover (6.52 ac) 33,923 cy
Phase 3 Final Cover (7.6 ac) 39,543 cy
Phase 3 Intermediate Cover 64,173 cy
Phase 4 Intermediate Cover 51,975 cy
Total Required Soil (remaining activities) 248,825 cy
1.4 Processing and Temporary Storage Areas
Five material processing and storage areas are labeled A – E on Drawing S1. Relevant acreage
and maximum volumes as T&P operations (Areas A – C) and/or soil stockpiles (Areas D – E)
are listed on the drawing. These areas are designated for temporary storage and recycling of
concrete debris, wood waste, soil and finished products, e.g., aggregate, mulch, topsoil and fill
dirt. A more detailed description of these areas is provided in Section 5.4.
Drawing EC5 shows BMP’s that are already in place for managing runoff in Areas A – E.
These measures are scheduled for a permit update and appropriate steps are being pursued. The
measures were originally approved and installed under the mining permit for a “bare-earth”
condition, i.e., maximum runoff. Recovered metals shall be stored roll-off boxes, not in the
stockpiles, and equipment may be parked and fueled in these areas.
Statutory requirements and provisions for fire protection (see Section 5.9 and Section 6.4) limit
the storage capacity of Areas A – E. Estimated quantities for each of these areas, in accordance
with designated uses is shown on Drawing S1. Maximum anticipated storage times for wood
wastes and recycled wood products is 3 months, such that composting will not occur. Inert
concrete debris, aggregates and soil may be stored for longer periods, subject to the statutory
requirement that 75% of each material quantity is removed within one calendar year.
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 16
2.1 Engineering Report
This section of the report describes the physical aspects of the facility design, with
emphasis on waste containment and environmental control systems, based on the
hydrogeologic data discussed in earlier studies. The design was prepared by a qualified
Professional Engineer, who is licensed to practice in North Carolina and is familiar with
the requirements of the North Carolina Division of Waste Management (Division) rules.
Phase 3 is set to provide approximately 5 years of capacity, in keeping with rules.
Also, in keeping with the intent of 15A NCAC 13B .0531 - .0547, there is no liner or
leachate collection system for this facility, since the site meets the rule requirements for
soil types present within two feet below planned base grades, and there is at least 4 feet of
vertical separation between the waste and seasonal high ground water and/or bedrock. The
planned base grades and outer slopes will have maximum slope ratios of 3H:1V, which
have been demonstrated to be stable.
2.1.1 Analytical Methods
The facility design incorporates elements that are consistent with Division rules and
guidelines, as well as sound engineering practice. Various analyses used in the design of
the facility include evaluations of soil conditions, i.e., the consistency of subgrade soils and
the availability of suitable soils for constructing stable embankments and other earthen
structures (discussed below), and ground water characteristics, i.e., flow directions and
seasonal water depth fluctuations. Soil properties testing used to facilitate these
evaluations included grain size analysis, shear strength, consolidation, and compaction
characteristics. Stability and settlement of foundation soils were considered in setting base
grades, as was the outer slope stability for the final cover system, presented in Appendix
2. Other analyses including an evaluation of Erosion and Sedimentation Control (E&SC)
and storm water management systems that are permitted by the predecessor agency to
NCDEQ Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources, are presented in Appendix 3.
2.1.2 Identified Critical Conditions
Based on the nature of the soils within Phase 3 (and the entire CDLF footprint), along with
an understanding of geologic conditions within the region, no inherent foundation stability
or long-term settlement problems are anticipated. Some considerations that are both
generic to landfills and specific to the on-site soils, learned through practical experience
with the construction of other landfills in the region, are discussed below.
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 17
•Subsurface conditions consist of weathered granite saprolite, i.e., “sandrock,”
which can vary in density within short lateral and horizontal distances. Conditions
that produce “auger refusal” can be localized and not apparent during open
excavations. The grading plan is based on auger refusal and may not reflect the
actual excavation characteristics.
•Groundwater is typically deeper than bedrock within the eastern portions of the site,
shallower than bedrock within the western portion of the site. Groundwater depths
govern the vertical separation requirements for the base grading plan within the
western half of the site (approximately) while bedrock elevations govern within the
eastern portion of the site.
•Minor veins or “knots” of rock-like materials may be encountered above the
permitted grades, which may require ripping for removal.
•Required soil types for the upper two (2) feet of base grades include SM, SC, ML,
MH, CL, and CH classifications. These soils are abundant on the site.
•Required lower permeability soils for final cover construction, which require a
permeability no greater than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec are also available in sufficient
quantities, but the operator will need to segregate and reserve these soils.
•Borrow site selection and a field evaluation of the soils during construction (see
Section 4) will be critical to assure the subgrade construction complies with the
rule requirements.
•Soil compaction is dependent on both compaction effort (i.e., the right equipment)
and working within the correct range of near-optimum moisture (Section 4.2.1).
•Properly compacted embankments are expected to be stable due to high soil
strength and stable foundation conditions. Outer slope stability (relative to final
cover) will also rely on adequate compaction and observation of proper slope ratios,
due to the strength considerations.
•Soil erosivity is a consideration that can be counteracted with good cover
construction practices and vegetative cover. The on-site soils have moderate field
capacity and poor nutrient value, which may require additional effort to establish
vegetation. These conditions pose operational considerations but require no special
design accommodations.
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 18
2.1.3 Technical References
Calculations found in Appendix 2 are referenced within the various analyses. All
calculations and analyses were performed in accordance with accepted engineering
standards of practice.
2.1.4 Location Restriction Demonstrations
The site was granted a Site Suitability determination in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B
.0531 et seq. based on work completed in 2002-04, (the site characteristics were determined
suitable for a C&D landfill). Relative to Rule .0536 pertaining to C&D landfills, the site
has no disqualifying conditions with respect to zoning, setbacks from residences or potable
wells, historic or cultural sites, state or nature preserves, 100-year floodplains, wetlands,
water supply critical areas, or endangered species. Documentation pertaining to these site
selection criteria is found in the 2002 Site Suitability Report.
2.2 Construction Materials and Practices
Based on the 2002 Design Hydrogeologic Report (found in the original Permit to
Construct application) investigation and the 2015 Design Hydrologic Report, on-site
soils available for embankment and subgrade construction consist chiefly of variably silty
sand exhibiting Unified Soil Classification System classifications of SM and SM-ML, with
silty clay (CL) and clayey silt (ML). These soils meet the requirements for the upper two
feet beneath the landfill subgrade referenced in 15A NCAC 13B .0540 (2). The soils
exhibit adequate compaction characteristics and shear strength (when properly compacted)
to build stable embankments and subgrade that will not undergo excessive settlement.
Some selective use of soils and/or field evaluation will be required to place the correct soil
types within the upper two (2) feet beneath the subgrade elevations.
Good construction practices for embankments and subgrade include compaction using
steel-wheel rollers, sheep foot rollers, and/or smooth-drum rollers of sufficient weight –
not dozers – with a minimum number of passes (typically three to five passes) in two
perpendicular directions to achieve the desired strength properties for stability. Experience
at the site indicates that material selection (i.e., avoiding soils that are excessively wet or
exhibit excess organic debris content) and/or blending soils to negate the effects of wet or
slick soils will produce satisfactory results. The targeted compaction criterion is 95% of
standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698). Critical embankment and
subgrade areas should be tested to ensure proper compaction in accordance with the criteria
outlined in the CQA Plan (Section 4.0).
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 19
2.3 Design Hydrogeologic Report
A Design Hydrogeologic Report for Phase 3, dated April 2018, has been prepared and is
included in this report as Appendix 7.
2.4 Engineering Drawings
Refer to the rolled plan set that accompanies this report. All relevant criteria required by
the rules (except as noted) are depicted on the plans.
2.4.1 Existing Conditions
See Drawings E1 in the Construction Drawings.
2.4.2 Grading Plan
See Drawing E2.
2.4.3 Storm water Segregation
Drawings E3 – E6 depict operational stages that include measures to separate storm water
runoff from contacting the waste, hence reducing the generation of leachate. Good
practices for water management include maintaining slopes with positive drainage directed
toward approved E&S measures, proper use of soil cover and orderly waste placement.
2.4.4 Final Cap System
Drawings E6 and EC4 depict final cover contours and the layout of the E&S best
management practices (BMPs). See Drawings EC1 and EC2 for the E&S details and
Drawing EC3 for schedules of pile and ditch sizes. See Drawing EC5 for a tentative LFG
vent layout.
2.4.5 Temporary and Permanent E&SC
Drawings E1 – E5 and EC5 depict temporary erosion and sedimentation (E&S) control
measures required at various stages of CDLF and T&P operations. Drawings EC1 – EC3
provide construction details for these measures. The E&SC plan approved by the NC
DENR Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section (now NC DEQ Division of
Energy, Minerals and Land Resources) included all operational areas now in use and final
closure conditions. Relevant calculations are presented in Appendix 3.
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 20
2.4.6 Vertical Separation
The rules require a minimum vertical separation of 4 feet between the CDLF base grades
and bedrock and/or the estimated maximum seasonal water levels. Vertical separation for
Phase 3 was established based on the 2018 Design Hydrogeologic report, drawing on data
from the Phase 1 (2002) and Phase 2 (2013) reports. For groundwater, historic monitoring
well data were used to estimate the maxima, which occur approximately 2 feet higher than
the 2002 data and within a few inches higher than the 2018 observations. It should be
noted that a portion of the Phase 3B footprint is inaccessible due a large soil stockpile, thus
a test pit investigation is planned to confirm these estimates during construction, as was
done for the earlier phases. Vertical separation to groundwater based on these criteria are
depicted in Drawings S2 – S4 (map view) and in Drawings X1 and X2 (cross sections).
2.4.7 Other Features
The rule governing Section 2.4.6 pertains to liners and leachate collection systems, if
proposed (none are).
2.5 Specific Engineering Calculations and Results
Calculations for settlement and slope stability were performed using site specific data. The
calculations can be found in Appendix 2. Supporting geotechnical lab data is found in
Appendix 2 and Table 1. The following is a brief description of the analyses.
2.5.1 Settlement
Settlement is a concern for maintaining vertical separation between the bottom of the waste
(or base liner) and the maximum long-term seasonal high-water table. Settlements of the
foundation soils result from time-dependent strain, i.e., a change in thickness within the
various soil layers due to the vertical stress (weight of the landfill) applied at the surface,
accompanied by drainage of the various soil layers. Vertical stresses beneath landfills
gradually increase as the waste becomes thicker over long periods of time. Strain-induced
settlements within sands and/or well drained silts and clays are relatively short-term, thus
long-term settlements are not typically a concern unless thick uniform clay deposits are
present (which tend to drain slowly) – such is not the case at the subject landfill. This
landfill site is excavated into residual saprolite, derived from the underlying bedrock,
thus settlement is not expected to be a concern.
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 21
Settlements were calculated using elastic methods adapted from the US Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for highway embankments. Ostensibly, a landfill is a large
flexible embankment with the highest stresses impinging on the foundation soils near the
center. The FHWA settlement calculation is based on the work of Hough (1959) and
others, which considers both the material type and overburden depth for determining a
“correction factor” for standard penetration test (SPT) values, from which the
compressibility and load-induced strain of each soil layer can be evaluated. For sandy soils
conventional sampling via Shelby tubes and laboratory consolidation testing is infeasible.
No Shelby tube samples were acquired for laboratory consolidation tests, because the soils
were too sandy and dense.
A spreadsheet facilitates the settlement calculation (see Appendix 2). The maximum
vertical stress increase which was calculated using the maximum embankment height of
110 feet and an average unit weight of 1000 pounds per cubic yard (37 pcf), then applying
a depth-related “influence factor” based on elastic stress distribution theory. Next a
subsurface stress distribution was developed for original and post-construction (final
height) conditions, based on the depth and average unit weight of the soil layers, plus the
added vertical stresses. The SPT correction factor was applied to determine the
compressibility factor and strain within each layer, differentiating between sand and clay
layers based on empirical data. Strain in the individual layers was summed up to estimate
the total settlement. Time-dependent settlement was not considered due to the well-drained
conditions indicated by the subsurface data.
Assuming uniform subsurface conditions within the footprint – as confirmed by the test
borings – a representative subsurface profile was used to estimate the maximum
settlements beneath the center of the landfill. Settlements along the edges of the landfill
are negligible, and settlements beneath the slopes fall in between the maximum and
minimum values. The calculations confirm that the base grade design, which typically
provides more than the minimum required 4 feet of separation, is sufficient to
accommodate the anticipated settlement. Differential settlement within the footprint is not
a concern. The maximum estimated foundation settlement is 0.36 feet.
2.5.2 Slope Stability
Two primary concerns exist for landfills with respect to slope stability: deep-seated/global
stability or veneer stability. Deep-seated/global instability involves instability in a deep
layer in the foundation or along the base of the landfill (which could potentially result in
catastrophic slope failure). Veneer stability (sliding of the cover) can expose the waste but
is typically more of a maintenance issue relative to the effort of exacting repairs.
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 22
Subsurface conditions identified at this site are relatively sandy (high strength soils) with
interspersed clay pockets and sand seams that are expected to drain readily under the
applied embankment loads – only “effective” stresses (i.e., drained conditions) were
considered. The site is not earthquake prone, thus liquefaction is not a concern. No
extremely soft layers that would pose stability concerns were identified by the SPT testing,
but the foundation is expected to undergo a strain-hardening strength increase as settlement
occurs. This means the foundation soils will become even more stable with time.
2.5.2.1 Deep-seated stability – Limit-equilibrium methods, STABL-5M was the model
used for this project, evaluate the balance of forces driving a slide (weight of the porous
material and contained water) against the forces resisting a slide (shear strength, expressed
as cohesion and friction) along a theoretical failure surface, which can be either a circular
surface or a series of intersecting planar surfaces. A “static” analysis considers just the
weight of the materials and the shear strength (tie-back loads may be considered for
reinforced embankments); a “dynamic” analysis might consider external loads, such as
linear loads at the top of the embankment (i.e., traffic forces) or additional horizontal loads
to represent earthquakes (expressed as a fraction of the normal gravity field, specific to the
region of interest).
In more advanced routines, the mass above the failure surface is divided into many slices,
and the driving and resisting forces for each of which are calculated and summed up.
Variations on the “method of slices” involve planar block failure surfaces – typically the
more conservative analysis – and classic circular failure surfaces, both of which represent
the loci of movement at the base of a sliding mass above the failure surface. The balance
of forces – the sum of the resisting forces divided by the sum of the driving forces – is
expressed as a ratio, e.g., 1.5:1, or simply 1.5, which is called the “safety factor.” Ratios
less than unity (safety factor <1) indicate unstable conditions. Typical minimum safety
factors for maintaining stable embankment conditions throughout the life of a project are
1.5 for static conditions, 1.2 for seismic conditions.
Shear strength inputs to the STABL-5M model were developed from the drilling and
laboratory data (see the 2002 Design Hydrogeologic Report). A circular failure surface
and a block analysis were analyzed with the Janbu method of slices. A representative soil
profile was developed from the drilling data. A side slope ratio of 3H:1V was modeled.
Shear strength parameters were derived empirically from the standard penetration
resistance values, based on familiarity with local soils and decades of engineering
experience. Typically, the in-situ sandrock exhibits a high shear strength value, expressed
in engineering terms as the cohesion (in units of force/area) and the internal friction angle
(expressed in degrees).
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 23
The following table shows a summary of the soil strength input values, representative of
pre-excavation conditions at the project site, i.e., along the edges of the mine and landfill.
Table 2A
DESIGN SOIL PROPERTIES
Soil
Layer
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Layer Description
Saturated
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Drained
Cohesion
(psf)*
Drained
Friction
Angle (deg)
1 110 Waste 64 100 25
2 10 Silty sand
N = 17 110 100 35
3 25 Silt-Clay
N = 20-50 135 300 34
4 40 Silty sand
N = 100 130 40 35
5 40 Bedrock 145 5000 45
*Apparent cohesion for silty sands and waste is based on retrogression analysis from other projects (based
on experience). The water table was modeled at a depth of 5 feet below ground surface, i.e., the base of the
waste, which reflects seasonal high conditions.
Based on the analysis presented in Appendix 2, the minimum safety factors calculated for
this project are summarized below:
Table 2B
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Failure Analysis Seismic* Non-Seismic
Block 1.56 1.85
Circular 2.15 2.15
*A horizontal static load of 0.04g was applied to represent regional seismicity, consistent with the
protocols of the STABL5M computer program – the region is not within a seismic impact zone as
defined by NC DENR Solid Waste Rules
2.5.2.2 Veneer Stability – Sliding of the final cover (or veneer failure) is dependent on
the slope angle, the degree of saturation, and the material strength, (i.e. the interface friction
angle and cohesion within the soils and between the soils and synthetic components, if
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 24
any). Veneer failure occurs when the pore pressures build up along a critical interface
exceeding available shear strength. The severity of failure can range from minor sloughing
of small areas (maintenance nuisances) to large-scale slides requiring complete
replacement of large sections – this type of failure is expensive to repair, especially when
synthetic components are involved. The analysis is typically performed for preliminary
design conditions to anticipate (and try to avoid) the large-scale failures.
A worse-case scenario involves little (or no) cohesion, as in a geotextile-geomembrane
interface, and complete saturation of the soils overlying that interface. Good engineering
practice requires a drainage layer (typically a synthetic geonet) whenever a flexible
membrane barrier is used, e.g., an alternative final cover that might be considered. The
regulatory minimum cover includes 18 inches of vegetative support soil overlying a
compacted soil barrier. Given the regional soil types, the upper 18 inches could include a
high permeability sand layer near the base, and ample soil resources are available for the
compacted soil barrier (maximum 1 x 10-5 cm/sec permeability). North Carolina Solid
Waste regulations allow alternative final covers, subject to approval by the Solid Waste
Section, but specific interface testing will be required to verify future designs.
Even when native soil covers are used, drainage is still important relative to veneer
stability, so a final cover section should include higher permeability sand layer next to the
barrier to prevent the soils above the barrier from becoming saturated. Assuming a
regulatory minimum cover soil profile is used, the critical interface for veneer stability
exists within a low-cohesion sand layer overlying the compacted soil barrier at full
saturation on a 3H:1V slope (i.e., the angle measured from the horizontal is 18 degrees).
While a minimum cohesion could be assumed along the sand layer and the compacted soil
barrier, the stresses near the base of the sand layer would control stability.
A veneer stability analysis (Appendix 2) adapted from Matasovic (1991)1 was performed
to evaluate four conditions: static unsaturated and saturated conditions (with a required
safety factor of 1.5) and seismic unsaturated and saturated conditions (with a safety factor
of 1.1). For this site, the static (non-seismic) saturated case is the critical condition for
design because of the higher required safety factor. The calculations start with the given
slope geometry and saturation state, then for a given safety factor the required friction (with
or without cohesion) is back-calculated to provide the desired safety factor.
1 Geotechnical and Stability Analyses for Ohio Waste Containment Facilities, Geotechnical Resource Group,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio, September 2004, pg. 9-12.
2.0 ENGINEERING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)

A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 25
The analysis assumed full saturation of the vegetation support layer (upper cover soil is at
field capacity) with a 1-year, 60-minute design storm impinging, resulting in a head of just
over 12 inches acting on the base of the upper soil layer. Assuming the deeper compacted
soil layer is stronger (due to cohesion) a minimum friction angle of 31 degrees is required
within the upper soil layer. Select soils available in the region (including the borrow sites
on the premises) will provide this minimum friction angle, combined with the required
high permeability for drainage. The CQA program for the final closure should verify the
available friction angles for the actual cover components (including alternative cover
designs if these are to be used).

2.5.3 Final Slope Ratios

Both the deep-seated stability analysis (Section 2.5.2.1) and the veneer stability analysis
(Section 2.5.2.2) assumed a 3H:1V slope ratio. These analyses demonstrate that stability
safety factors meet the minimum acceptable requirement of 1.5 for static (non-seismic)
conditions. The use of 3H:1V slope ratios will result in stable slopes, providing that the
drainage requirements are accommodated and assuming proper vegetation is maintained.

3.0 CONSTRUCTION PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 10/15/2018
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 26
The following sections demonstrate compliance of the facility design for CDLF Phase 3
with the requirements of the C&D Rules, 15A NCAC 13B .0537 - .0540.
3.1 Horizontal Separation
The following regulatory criteria are addressed in project drawings specified below. Refer
to the rolled plan set that accompanies this report.
3.1.1 Property Lines
The minimum setback to property lines is 200 feet (Drawings E1 – E5).
3.1.2 Residences and Wells
The minimum setback to residences and wells is 500 feet (Drawings E1 – E5).
3.1.3 Surface Waters
The minimum setback to surface waters is 50 feet (Drawings E1 – E5).
3.1.4 Existing Landfill Units
There are no other landfill units present on the site.
3.2 Vertical Separation
3.2.1 Settlement
Maximum waste thickness is approximately 110 feet; the waste density is approximately
0.5 tons/cubic yard. Foundation soils are very dense residual silty sand and gravelly sand
and silt (all saprolite). Settlement calculations (see Appendix 2) indicate maximum post-
construction settlements on the order of 0.36 feet (4 inches), or less. Discussion of the
assumptions and procedures behind the calculations is presented in Section 2.5.
3.2.2 Soil Consistency
Based on the laboratory data summary table (see Appendix 2), most of the on-site soils
generally classify as silty sands (SM), silt (ML) or dual classify as sand-silt (SM-ML). A
relatively small fraction of the near surface soils consists of low plasticity silty clay (CL),
3.0 CONSTRUCTION PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 27
and very minor quantities of high plasticity silty clay (MH-CH) soil types are present.
Based on the data, these soil types are prevalent and will be present – either in-situ or
within compacted subgrade – to meet the requirements of Rule .0540 (2) (b) for the upper
two feet beneath the subgrade. No modification of the soils, i.e., admixtures, will be
required to meet this rule requirement, but reworking to blend the soils to a more uniform
consistency and proper compaction may be required to mitigate isolated pockets of highly
granular soils. For new base grade fill sections, proper soil selection will be required. The
soil types shall be documented in the CQA program.
3.3 Survey Control Benchmarks
A permanent benchmark is located long Bishop Road (see facility drawings), with the
following information:
Table 3A
BENCHMARK DATA
NAD 83 Coordinates N 817,233.63456
E 1,749,238.54876
NGVD 29 El. 783.30
3.4 Site Location Coordinates
The latitude and longitude coordinates of the center of the site (determined from Google
Earth) are approximately:
Table 3B
SITE CENTER COORDINATES
LATTITUDE 35.98745 N
LONGITUDE -79.84639 E
3.5 Landfill Subgrade
3.5.1 Subgrade Inspection Requirement
The Owner/Operator shall have the subgrade inspected by a qualified engineer or geologist,
accompanied by a SWS Hydrologist, upon completion of the excavation, in accordance
with Rule .0534 (b) and Rule .0539. Said inspection is required by the Division to verify
that subgrade conditions are consistent with expected conditions based on the Design
Hydrogeologic Report.
3.0 CONSTRUCTION PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0539)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 28
3.5.2 Division Notification
The Owner/Operator shall notify the Division at least 24 hours in advance of the subgrade
inspection.
3.5.3 Vertical Separation Compliance
The subgrade inspection shall verify to the Division that the minimum vertical separation
requirements are met and that required subgrade soil types are present.
3.6 Special Engineering Features
This section of the rules generally pertains to liners and leachate collection systems, if any
are present. There are no liners and leachate collection systems in this project.
3.7 Sedimentation and Erosion Control
The sedimentation and erosion control structures were permitted by the now NCDEQ
Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources, Land Quality Section and have been
designed to accommodate the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, per the North Carolina
Sedimentation Pollution Control Law (15A NCAC 04). Required measures are depicted
throughout in the construction plan set (see Drawings E1 – E6 and EC1 – EC5). Existing
sediment traps shall be cleaned out and upgraded as needed; other measures shall be
maintained throughout the life of the facility.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 10/15/2018
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 29
4.1 General Provisions
This Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan has been prepared to provide the Owner,
Engineer, and CQA Testing Firm – operating as a coordinated team – the means to govern
the construction quality and to satisfy landfill certification requirements. The CQA program
includes both a quantitative testing program (by a third-party) and qualitative evaluations (by
all parties) to assure that the construction meets the desired criteria for long-term
performance. Variations in material properties and working conditions may require minor
modification of handling and placement techniques throughout the project. Close
communication between the various parties is paramount. It is anticipated that the early
stages of the construction activities will require more attention by the CQA team, i.e., the
Contractor, Engineer, Owner and CQA Testing Firm.
The requirements of the CQA program (construction oversight and testing) apply to the
preparation of the base grades, embankments, and engineered subgrade, as well as the final
cover installation. All lines, grades, and layer thicknesses shall be confirmed by topographic
surveys performed under the supervision of the Engineer of Record or the CQA Testing Firm,
and as built drawings of the base grades and final cover shall be made part of the construction
records. Once the base grade and final cover construction is completed, the Engineer shall
verify that all surfaces are vegetated within 20 days following completion of final grades.
The Engineer shall also verify that interior slopes and base grades of new cells are protected
until waste is placed.
4.1.1 Definitions
4.1.1.1 Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) – In the context of this CQA Plan,
Construction Quality Assurance is defined as a planned and systematic program employed
by the Owner to assure conformity of base grade and embankment construction and the final
cover system installation with the project drawings and specifications. CQA is provided by
the CQA Testing Firm as a representative of the Owner and is independent from the
Contractor and all manufacturers. The CQA program is designed to provide confidence that
the items or services brought to the job meet contractual and regulatory requirements and
that the final cover will perform satisfactorily in service.
4.1.1.2 Construction Quality Control (CQC) – Construction Quality Control refers to
actions taken by manufacturers, fabricators, installers, and/or the Contractor to ensure that
the materials and the workmanship meet the requirements of the project drawings and the
project specifications. The manufacturer's specifications and quality control (QC)
requirements are included in this CQA Manual by reference only. A complete updated
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 30
version of each manufacturer's QC Plan for any Contractor-supplied components shall be
incorporated as part of the Contractor's CQC submittal. The Owner and/or the Engineer shall
approve the Contractor’s QC submittal prior to initial construction. Contractor submittals
may be (but are not required to be) incorporated into the final CQA certification document
at the Owner’s discretion.
4.1.1.3 CQA Certification Document – The Owner and/or the Engineer will prepare a
certification document upon completion of construction, or phases of construction. The
Owner will submit these documents to the NC DENR Division of Waste Management Solid
Waste Section. The CQA certification report will include relevant testing performed by the
CQA Testing Firm, including field testing used to verify preliminary test results and/or
design assumptions, records of field observations, and documentation of any modifications
to the design and/or testing program. An “as-built” drawing (prepared by/for the Owner),
showing competed contours, shall be included. The Certification Document may be
completed in increments, i.e., as several documents, as respective portions of the final cover
are completed. Section 2 discusses the documentation requirements.
4.1.1.4 Discrepancies Between Documents – The Contractor shall be instructed to bring
discrepancies to the attention of the CQA Testing Firm who shall then notify the Owner for
resolution. The Owner has the sole authority to determine resolution of discrepancies
existing within the Contract Documents (this may also require the approval of State Solid
Waste Regulators). Unless otherwise determined by the Owner, the more stringent
requirement shall be the controlling resolution.
4.1.2 Responsibilities and Authorities
The parties to Construction Quality Assurance and Quality Control include the Owner,
Engineer, Contractor, CQA Testing Firm (i.e., a qualified Soils Laboratory).
4.1.2.1 Owner – The Owner is A-1 Sandrock, Inc., who operates and is responsible for the
facility. The Owner or his designee is responsible for the project and will serve as liaison
between the various parties.
4.1.2.2 Engineer – The Engineer (a.k.a. the “Engineer of Record”) is responsible for the
engineering design, drawings, and project specifications, regulatory affairs, and
communications coordinator for the construction of the base grades, embankments,
engineered subgrade, drainage and final cover systems. The Engineer represents the Owner
and coordinates communications and meetings as outlined in Section 4.3.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 31
The Engineer shall also be responsible for proper resolution of all quality issues that arise
during construction. The Engineer shall prepare the CQA certification documents, with input
from the Owner, the CQA Testing Firm and the Owner’s Surveyor. The Engineer shall be
registered in the State of North Carolina.
4.1.2.3 Contractor – The Contractor is responsible for the construction of the subgrade,
earthwork, and final cover system. The Contractor is responsible for the overall CQC on the
project and coordination of submittals to the Engineer. Additional responsibilities of the
Contractor include compliance with 15A NCAC 4, i.e., the North Carolina Sedimentation
and Erosion Control rules.
Qualifications – The Contractor qualifications are specific to the construction
contract documents and are independent of this CQA Manual. The Owner may serve
as the contractor, as long as the specifications are met.
4.1.2.4 CQA Testing Firm – The CQA Testing Firm (a.k.a. Soils Laboratory) is a
representative of the Owner, independent from the Contractor, and is responsible for
conducting geotechnical tests on conformance samples of soils and aggregates used in
structural fills and the final cover system. Periodic site visits shall be coordinated with the
Engineer of Record and the Contractor.
Qualifications – The CQA Testing Firm shall have experience in the CQA aspects
of landfill construction and be familiar with ASTM and other related industry
standards. The Soils CQA Laboratory will can provide test results within 24 hours
or a reasonable time after receipt of samples, depending on the test(s) to be
conducted, as agreed to at the outset of the project by affected parties, and will
maintain that standard throughout the construction.
4.1.3 Control vs. Records Testing
4.1.3.1 Control Testing – In the context of this CQA plan, Control Tests are those tests
performed on a material prior to its actual use in construction to demonstrate that it can meet
the requirements of the project plans and specifications. Control Test data may be used by
the Engineer as the basis for approving alternative material sources.
4.1.3.2 Record Testing – Record Tests are those tests performed during or after the actual
placement of a material to demonstrate that its in-place properties meet or exceed the
requirements of the project drawings and specifications.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 32
4.1.4 Modifications and Amendment
This document was prepared by the Engineer to communicate the basic intentions and
expectations regarding the quality of materials and workmanship. Certain articles in this
document may be revised with input from all parties, if so warranted based on project specific
conditions. No modifications will be made without the Division’s approval.
4.1.5 Miscellaneous
4.1.5.1 Units – In this CQA Plan, and through the plans and specifications for this project,
all properties and dimensions are expressed in U.S. units.
4.1.5.2 References – This CQA Plan includes references to the most recent version of the
test procedures of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Table 4D at the
end of this text contains a list of these procedures.
4.2 Inspection, Sampling and Testing
The requirements of the General Earthwork (perimeter embankments and subgrade) and
Final Cover Systems (soil barrier, vegetative cover, and storm water management devices)
differ with respect to continuous or intermittent testing and oversight. The following two
sections are devoted to the specific requirements of each work task.
4.2.1 General Earthwork
This section outlines the CQA program for structural fill associated with perimeter
embankments, including sedimentation basins, and general grading of the subgrade. Issues
to be addressed include material approval, subgrade approval, field control and record tests,
if any, and resolution of problems.
4.2.1.1 Compaction Criteria – All material to be used as compacted embankment shall be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (ASTM
D-698), or as approved by the Engineer or designated QC/QA personnel. Specifically, field
observation of the response of soils beneath equipment and the use of a probe rod and/or a
penetrometer are other means of determining the adequacy of compaction. Skilled soil
technicians working under the supervision of an engineer may make this determination,
subject to concurrence by the engineer. Approval is based on visual evaluation for
consistency with project specification and objectives. Such material evaluations may be
performed either during material handling, i.e., delivery to or upon receipt at the landfill, or
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 33
from existing stockpiles and/or the soil borrow site. Borrow soils shall be evaluated by the
Engineer and QC/QA personnel prior to placement on the work site. All visual inspection
and testing shall be documented for the CQA Report.
Where permeability is the key parameter of interest, field and/or lab tests will be used.
4.2.1.2 Testing Criteria – Periodic compaction (moisture-density) testing requirements are
imposed on the structural fill, although compaction and testing requirements may not be as
stringent as that required for the final cover construction. Initial compaction testing shall be
in accordance with the project specifications. The Engineer may recommend alternative
compaction testing requirements based on field performance. Additional qualitative
evaluations shall be made by the Contractor Superintendent and the Engineer to satisfy the
performance criteria for placement of these materials.
CQA monitoring and testing will not be “full-time” on this project. Rather, the CQA Testing
Firm will test completed portions of the work at the Contractor’s or Owner’s request. The
CQA Testing Firm may be called upon to test final cover and/or compacted structural fill at
any time, ideally scheduling site visits to optimize his efforts. The Engineer will make an
inspection at least monthly, more often as needed (anticipated more often in the initial stages
of new construction).
4.2.1.3 Material Evaluation – Each load of soil will be examined either at the source, at
the stockpile area, or on the working face prior to placement and compaction. Any unsuitable
material, i.e., that which contains excess moisture, insufficient moisture, debris or other
deleterious material, will be rejected from the working face and routed to another disposal
area consistent with its end use. Materials that are either too dry or too wet, may be
stockpiled temporarily near the working face for further evaluation by designated QC/QA
personnel. The Contractor may blend such materials with other materials (in the event of
dryness) or dry the materials (in the event of excess moisture). Soils designated for the upper
2 feet of subgrade within the cell shall consist of ML, MH, CL, CH, SM and mixed SM-ML
classifications – this shall be confirmed with lab testing.
4.2.1.4 Subgrade Approval – Designated QC/QA personnel shall verify that the
compacted embankment and/or subgrade are constructed in accordance with the project
specifications prior to placing subsequent or overlying materials. These activities include an
inspection of the subgrade by a qualified engineer, geologist, or soil technician working
under the supervision of an engineer, which will examine and classify the soils within the
upper two feet beneath the finished subgrade. This may consist of continual observation
during placement with confirmatory sampling and laboratory gradation testing at specified
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 34
intervals, or there may be an exploratory sampling program with confirmatory testing at
specified intervals at some time near the completion of the subgrade. The frequency of visual
inspection and testing shall conform to Table 4A.
4.2.2 General Earthwork Construction
4.2.2.1 Construction Monitoring – The following criteria apply:
A. Earthwork shall be performed as described in the project specifications. The
Construction Superintendent has the responsibility of assuring that only select
materials are used in the construction, discussed above.
B. Only materials previously approved by the Engineer or his designee shall be
used in construction of the compacted embankment. Unsuitable material will
be removed and replaced followed by re-evaluation to the satisfaction of the
Engineer and retesting, as may be required.
C. All required field density and moisture content tests shall be completed before
the overlying lift of soil is placed – as applicable. The surface preparation (e.g.
wetting, drying, scarification, compaction etc.) shall be completed before the
Engineer (or his designate) will allow placement of subsequent lifts.
D. The CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer shall monitor protection of the
earthwork, i.e., from erosion or desiccation during and after construction.
4.2.2.2 Control Tests – The control tests, as shown on Table 4A, will be performed by the
CQA Testing Firm prior to placement of additional compacted embankment.
4.2.2.3 Record Tests – The record tests, as shown on Table 4A, will be performed by the
CQA Testing Firm during placement of compacted embankment. The CQA Testing Firm
may propose and the Engineer may approve an alternative testing frequency. Alternatively,
the Engineer may amend the testing frequency, without further approval from the regulatory
agency, based on consistent and satisfactory field performance of the materials and the
construction techniques.
4.2.2.4 Record Test Failure – Failed tests shall be noted in the construction report, followed
by documentation of mitigation. Soils with failing tests shall be evaluated by the Engineer
(or his designee), and the soils shall either be recompacted or replaced, based on the
Engineer’s judgment. Recompaction of the failed area shall be performed and retested until
the area meets or exceeds requirements outlined in the specifications.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 35
4.2.2.5 Judgment Testing – During construction, the frequency of control and/or record
testing may be increased at the discretion of the CQA Testing Firm when visual observations
of construction performance indicate a potential problem. Additional testing for suspected
areas will be considered when:
•Rollers slip during rolling operation;
•Lift thickness is greater than specified;
•Fill material is at an improper moisture content;
•Fewer than the specified number of roller passes is made;
•Dirt-clogged rollers are used to compact the material;
•Rollers may not have used optimum ballast;
•Fill materials differ substantially from those specified;
•Degree of compaction is doubtful.
4.2.2.6 Deficiencies – The CQA Testing Firm will immediately determine the extent and
nature of all defects and deficiencies and report them to the Owner and Engineer. The CQA
Testing Firm shall properly document all defects and deficiencies – this shall be more critical
on the final cover construction, although this applies to structural fill as well. The Contractor
will correct defects and deficiencies to the satisfaction of the Owner and Engineer. The CQA
Testing Firm shall perform retests on repaired defects.
4.2.3 Final Cover Systems
This section outlines the CQA program for piping, drainage aggregate, geotextiles,
compacted soil barrier layer, and the vegetative soil layer of the final cover system, as well
as the related erosion and sedimentation control activities. Issues to be addressed include
material approval, subgrade approval, field control and record tests, if any, and resolution of
problems.
4.2.3.1 Material Approval – The Engineer and/or the CQA Testing Firm shall verify that
the following materials (as applicable) are provided and installed in accordance with the
project drawings, specifications, and this CQA Manual. In general, the Contractor shall
furnished material specification sheets to the Engineer for review and approval. In certain
cases, materials furnished by the Contractor may need to meet the Owner’s requirements, in
which case the Owner shall approve of the materials with the Engineer’s concurrence. The
materials approval process may involve the submittals furnished by the Owner, (for
documentation purposes) in the event that the Owner decides to furnish certain materials.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 36
A. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on HDPE pipe.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
B. Corrugated Polyethylene (CPE) Pipe
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on CPE pipe.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
C. Aggregates (Verify for each type of aggregate)
(1) Receipt of Contractor's submittals on aggregates.
(2) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(3) Verify aggregates in stockpiles or borrow sources conform to project
specifications. Certifications from a quarry will be sufficient.
(4) Perform material evaluations in accordance with Table 4B.
D. Vegetative Soil Layer and Drainage Layer
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Review contractor’s submittals on seed specifications.
(3) Perform material evaluations in accordance with Table 4C.
E. Compacted Barrier Layer
(1) Review manufacturer’s submittals for conformity with project specs.
(2) Conduct material control tests in accordance with Table 4C.
F. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(1) Review Contractor's submittals on erosion and sedimentation control items
(including rolled erosion control products and silt fence).
(2) Review of submittals for erosion and sedimentation control items for
conformity to the project specifications.
(3) Perform visual examination of materials for signs of age or deterioration.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 37
4.2.3.2 Final Cover Systems Installation – The CQA Testing Firm, in conjunction with
the Engineer, will monitor and document the construction of all final cover system
components for compliance with the project specifications. Monitoring for the components
of the final cover system includes the following:
•Verify location of all piping;
•Assuring sufficient vertical buffer between field equipment and piping;
•Monitoring thickness and moisture-density of the final cover layers and
verification that equipment does not damage the compacted barrier layer or
other components; and
•Assuring proper installation of sedimentation and erosion control measures.
4.2.3.3 Deficiencies – The CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer will immediately
determine the extent and nature of all defects and deficiencies and report them to the Owner.
The CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer shall properly document all defects and
deficiencies. The Contractor will correct defects and deficiencies to the satisfaction of the
Engineer. The CQA Testing Firm and/or the Engineer shall observe all retests.
4.3 CQA Meetings
Effective communication is critical toward all parties’ understanding of the objectives of the
CQA program and in resolving problems that may arise that could compromise the ability to
meet those objectives. To that end, meetings are essential to establish clear open channels
of communication. The frequency of meetings will be dictated by site conditions and the
effectiveness of communication between the parties.
4.3.1 Project Initiation CQA Meeting
A CQA Meeting will be held at the site prior to placement of the compacted barrier layer.
At a minimum, the Engineer, the Contractor, and representatives of the CQA Testing Firm
and of the Owner will attend the meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to begin planning
for coordination of tasks, anticipate any problems that might cause difficulties and delays in
construction, and, above all, review the CQA Manual to all of the parties involved.
During this meeting, the results of a prior compaction test pad will be reviewed, and the
project specific moisture-density relationships and it is very important that the rules
regarding testing, repair, etc., be known and accepted by all. This meeting should include
all of the activities referenced in the project specifications. The Engineer shall document
the meeting and minutes will be transmitted to all parties.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 38
4.3.2 CQA Progress Meetings
Progress meetings will be held between the Engineer, the Contractor, a representative of the
CQA Testing Firm, and representatives from any other involved parties. Meeting frequency
will be, at a minimum, once per month during active construction or more often if necessary
during critical stages of construction (i.e., initial stages of final cover). These meetings will
discuss current progress, planned activities for the next week, and any new business or
revisions to the work.
The Engineer will log any problems, decisions, or questions arising at this meeting in his
periodic reports. Any matter requiring action, which is raised in this meeting, will be
reported to the appropriate parties. The Engineer will document these meetings and minutes
will be transmitted to interested parties and to a record file.
4.3.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meetings
A special meeting will be held when and if a problem or deficiency is present or likely to
occur. At a minimum, the Engineer, the Contractor, the CQA Testing Firm, and
representatives will attend the meeting from any other involved parties. The purpose of the
meeting is to define and resolve the problem or work deficiency as follows:
•Define and discuss the problem or deficiency;
•Review alternative solutions; and
•Implement an action plan to resolve the problem or deficiency.
The Engineer will document these meetings and minutes will be transmitted to interested
parties and to a record file.
4.4 Documentation and Reporting
An effective CQA plan depends largely on recognition of which construction activities
should be monitored and on assigning responsibilities for the monitoring of each required
activity. This is most effectively accomplished and verified by the documentation of quality
assurance activities. The CQA Testing Firm will provide documentation to address quality
assurance requirements. Monitoring will not be continuous and full-time, although the CQA
Testing Firm representative (typically this is a Soil Technician) and the Engineer will make
frequent and periodic visits to inspect and/or test the work. Both parties shall keep records
of their visits and observations.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 39
The Soils Technician will visit the site periodically (e.g., once per week) to document
activities during placement of the structural fill and during final cover construction. Site
visits by the CQA Testing Firm shall be coordinated between the Contractor and the CQA
Testing Firm. The Engineer will make monthly site visits during these critical stages to
review the work.
The Construction Superintendent or his representative shall be present on-site daily and shall
keep a record of the general construction progress, noting specifically any problems or
inconsistencies that need to be brought to the Owner’s attention. The specifics of the
Contractor’s records will not be spelled out, but at a minimum, daily or weekly progress
records shall be kept and made available to the Owner upon request.
The CQA Testing Firm will provide the Owner (or his designee) with periodic progress
reports including signed descriptive remarks, data sheets, and logs to verify that required
CQA activities have been carried out. These reports shall also identify potential quality
assurance problems. The CQA Testing Firm will also maintain at the job site a complete file
of project drawings, reports, project specifications, the CQA Plan, periodic reports, test
results and other pertinent documents. The Owner shall keep this record file.
4.4.1 Periodic CQA Reports
The CQA Testing Firm representative's reporting procedures will include preparation of a
periodic report that will include the following information, where applicable:
•A unique sheet number for cross referencing and document control;
•Date, project name, location, and other identification;
•Data on weather conditions;
•A Site Plan showing all proposed work areas and test locations;
•Descriptions and locations of ongoing construction;
•Descriptions and specific locations of areas, or units, of work being tested
and/or observed and documented;
•Locations where tests and samples were taken;
•A summary of test results (as they become available, in the case of laboratory
tests);
•Calibration or recalibration of test equipment, and actions taken as a result of
recalibration;
•Off-site materials received, including quality verification documentation;
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 40
•Decisions made regarding acceptance of units of work, and/or corrective
actions to be taken in instances of substandard quality;
•Summaries of pertinent discussions with the Contractor and/or Engineer;
•The Technician's signature.
The periodic report must be completed by the end of each Technician's visit, prior to leaving
the site. This information will keep at the Contractor’s office and reviewed periodically by
the Owner and Engineer. The CQA Testing Firm on a weekly basis should forward copies
of the Periodic CQA Reports electronically to the Engineer. Periodic CQA Reports shall be
due to the Engineer no later than noon on the next working day (typically Monday) following
the end of a work week (typically Friday). If a periodic visit is postponed or cancelled, that
fact should be documented by the CQA Testing Firm and noted in the next periodic report.
4.4.2 CQA Progress Reports
The Engineer will prepare a summary progress report each month, or at time intervals
established at the pre-construction meeting. As a minimum, this report will include the
following information, where applicable:
•Date, project name, location, and other information;
•A summary of work activities during the progress reporting period;
•A summary of construction situations, deficiencies, and/or defects
occurring during the progress reporting period;
•A summary of all test results, failures and retests, and
•The signature of the Engineer.
The Engineer's progress reports must summarize the major events that occurred during that
week. This report shall include input from the Contractor and the CQA Testing Firm.
Critical problems that occur shall be communicated verbally to the Engineer immediately (or
as appropriate, depending on the nature of the concern) as well as being included in the
Periodic CQA Reports.
4.4.3 CQA Photographic Reporting
Photographs shall be taken by the CQA Testing Firm at regular intervals during the
construction process and in all areas deemed critical by the CQA Testing Firm. These
photographs will serve as a pictorial record of work progress, problems, and mitigation
activities. These records will be presented to the Engineer upon completion of the project.
Electronic photographs are preferred; in which case the electronic photos should be
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 41
forwarded to the Engineer (the CQA Testing Firm shall keep copies, as well). In lieu of
photographic documentation, videotaping may be used to record work progress, problems,
and mitigation activities. The Engineer may require that a portion of the documentation be
recorded by photographic means in conjunction with videotaping.
4.4.4 Documentation of Deficiencies
The Owner and Engineer will be made aware of any significant recurring nonconformance
with the project specifications. The Engineer will then determine the cause of the non-
conformance and recommend appropriate changes in procedures or specification. When this
type of evaluation is made, the results will be documented, and the Owner and Engineer will
approve any revision to procedures or specifications.
4.4.5 Design or Specification Changes
Design and/or project specification changes may be required during construction. In such
cases, the Contractor will notify the Engineer and/or the Owner. The Owner will then notify
the appropriate agency, if necessary. Design and/or project specification changes will be
made only with the written agreement of the Engineer and the Owner and will take the form
of an addendum to the project specifications. All design changes shall include a detail (if
necessary) and state which detail it replaces in the plans.
4.5 Final CQA Report
At the completion of each major construction activity at the landfill unit, or at periodic
intervals, the CQA Testing Firm will provide final copies of all required forms, observation
logs, field and laboratory testing data sheets, sample location plans, etc., in a certified report.
Said report shall include summaries of all the data listed above. The Engineer will provide
one or more final reports, pertinent to each portion of completed work, which will certify
that the work has been performed in compliance with the plans and project technical
specifications, and that the supporting documents provide the necessary information.
The Engineer will provide Record Drawings, prepared with input from the Owner’s
Surveyor, which will include scale drawings depicting the location of the construction and
details pertaining to the extent of construction (e.g., depths, plan dimensions, elevations, soil
component thicknesses, etc.). All final surveying required for the Record Drawings will be
performed by the Owner’s Surveyor. The following is a suggested outline for the Final CQA
Report(s). Note that some items may not be applicable to all stages of the project.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 42
FINAL CQA REPORT GENERAL OUTLINE (FINAL COVER SYSTEM)
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Project Description
3.0 CQA Program
3.1 Scope of Services
3.2 Personnel
4.0 Earthwork CQA
5.0 Final Cover System CQA
6.0 Summary and Conclusions
7.0 Project Certification
Appendices
A Design Clarifications/Modifications
B Photographic Documentation
C CQA Reporting
C1. CQA Reports
C2. CQA Meeting Minutes
D Earthwork CQA Data
D1. CQA Test Results - Control Tests
D2. CQA Test Results - Record Tests
E Final Cover System CQA Data
E1. Manufacturer’s Product Data and QC Certificates
E2. Test Results - Drainage Aggregate
E3. Test Results - Vegetative Soil Layer
E4. Test Results - Pressure Testing of HDPE Piping (Manufacturer data)
E5. Test results on final cover compacted soil barrier/low permeability layer
F Record Drawings
F1. Subgrade As-Built
F2. Compacted soil barrier/low permeability layer as-built drawing
F3. Vegetative Soil Layer As-Built
Each CQA report shall bear the signature and seal of the Engineer (or multiple Engineers as
applicable), attesting that the construction was completed in accordance with the CQA plan,
the conditions of the permit to construct, the requirements of the North Carolina Solid Waste
Rules, and acceptable engineering practice.
4.6 Storage of Records
All approved drawings and data sheets shall be stored in electronic format and as paper
copies in a secure location on site. These documents will become the property of the Owner.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 43
4.7 Protection of Finished Surfaces
The only relevant systems exposed after construction will be the finished slopes, including
both interior and exterior slopes, various drainage systems, and the subgrade. Ground cover
shall be established on all finished surfaces shall to prevent erosion, i.e., seeding of the
finished surfaces within 20 days, per NC DEQ Division of Land Quality rules, or other
measures for preventing erosion (e.g., mulch, rain sheets). Maintenance of finished slopes
and subgrade until waste is placed is required. Exterior slopes shall be vegetated in
accordance with application sediment and erosion control regulations. The Engineer shall
document that the finished surfaces are adequately protected upon completion and said
documentation shall be recorded in the CQA report.
The Owner/Operator shall be responsible for maintaining the finished surfaces, including
exterior slope vegetation and drainage conveyances, along with the interior slopes and
subgrade. If finished surfaces within the waste disposal area are required to sit completed
for more than 30 days following completion, the Engineer shall examine the finished surfaces
prior to waste disposal and the Owner shall be responsible for any necessary repairs, e.g.,
erosion that might affect embankment integrity or vertical separation with a subgrade. The
Engineer shall document any required maintenance or repairs prior to commencing disposal
activities and place said documentation into the Operating Record.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 44
Table 4A
CQA TESTING SCHEDULE FOR GENERAL EARTHWORK
PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST
FREQUENCY
CONTROL TESTS:
Consistency Evaluation ASTM D 2488
(visual)1
Each Material
RECORD TESTS:
Lift Thickness Direct Measure Each compacted lift
In-Place Density ASTM D 29222 20,000 ft2 per lift
Moisture Content ASTM D 30173 20,000 ft2 per lift
Subgrade Consistency within the
upper 24 inches4
Visual 4 tests per acre
Subgrade Consistency within the
upper 24 inches4
ASTM D 4318
ASTM D 7928
ASTM WK 39106
1 test per acre
Notes:
1. To be performed by Contractor Superintendent, Engineer, or CQA Testing Firm. Direct measure shall be
facilitated with hand auger borings.
2. Optionally use ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937. For every 10 nuclear density tests perform
at least 1 density test by ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937 as a verification of the accuracy of
the nuclear testing device. Minimum required soil density is 95 percent of the standard proctor maximum dry
density, which is dependent on the moisture-density characteristic developed for the specific soil during
initial construction; soils which result in a failed test and the lift must reworked and retested.
2a. If “beneficial fill” materials are used to construct embankments or structural fill, the Contractor shall spread
large particles evenly and fill all voids with finer soil – this is referred to as “choking off” the voids; density
testing shall be suspended at the discretion of the Engineer, but judgment testing shall be applied and the use
of these materials and evaluation thereof shall be documented as would any other soil placement activity
3. Optionally use ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959. For every ten (10) nuclear density-
moisture tests, perform at least 1 moisture test by ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959 as a
verification of the accuracy of the nuclear testing device.
4. Subgrade evaluation shall be conducted via continuous inspection with the indicated testing frequency, in
order to evaluate the full 24-inch depth, of an intrusive investigation (e.g., hand auger borings) may be
performed after portions of the subgrade are completed with the indicated testing frequency – all testing
locations, testing types and test results shall be recorded on a site map and made part of the construction
record
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 45
Table 4B
CQA TESTING SCHEDULE FOR DRAINAGE AND FINAL COVER MATERIALS
COMPONENT PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST
FREQUENCY
RECORD TESTS:
Gas Vent Pipes and
Stone
Correct type, grade and
placement for pipes;
correct gradation and
trench dimensions for
collection stone*
Visual Each Vent
Coarse Aggregate: Confirm Gradation Visual 5,000 CY1
Vegetative Soil Layer:
(In-Situ Verification)
Visual Classification ASTM D 2488 1 per acre
Layer Thickness Direct measure Survey4
Notes:
1. A quarry certification is acceptable for aggregate from a commercial quarry. If on-site derived stone or a
byproduct is used, i.e., crushed concrete aggregate, the gradation test frequency may be adjusted based on
project specific conditions. The Engineer shall approve all materials and alternative test frequencies.
Materials that do not meet relevant ASTM or AASHTO standard gradation specifications (either may be used
at the discretion of the Engineer) shall be rejected.
* Relative to Detail G on Drawing EC3.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 46
Table 4C
CQA TESTING SCHEDULE FOR FINAL COVER COMPACTED SOIL BARRIER
PROPERTY TEST METHOD MINIMUM TEST
FREQUENCY
RECORD TESTS:
Lift Thickness Direct measure Survey4
Permeability ASTM D50841 1 per acre per lift
In-Place Density ASTM D 29222 4 per acre per lift
Moisture Content ASTM D 30173 4 per acre per lift
Direct Shear Friction Test ASTM D 53215 1 per acre
Notes:
1. Optionally use ASTM D6391. Maximum allowable confining pressure for laboratory testing under ASTM
D5084 is 20 psi; maximum gradient is 10; actual confining pressure and gradient values shall be at the
discretion of the engineer in charge of the CQA program.
Maximum allowable soil permeability is 1 x 10-5 cm/sec; higher permeability results in a failed test and the
lift must be reworked and retested.
2. Optionally use ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937. For every 10 nuclear density tests perform
at least 1 density test by ASTM D 1556, ASTM D 2167, or ASTM D 2937 as a verification of the accuracy of
the nuclear device. Minimum required density is dependent on the moisture-density-permeability
characteristic developed for the specific soil during initial construction; lower density or incorrect moisture
may result in higher permeability. Permeability criteria shall govern the determination of a passing test.
3. Optionally use ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959. For every ten nuclear-moisture tests,
perform at least 1 moisture test by ASTM D 2216, ASTM D 4643, or ASTM D 4959 as a verification of the
accuracy of the nuclear testing device.
4. Topographic survey to be performed by licensed surveyor, observing the following technical specifications to
confirm that the minimum thickness of each proposed final cover component is constructed according to the
Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0543. Each of the following layers shall be documented with individual surveys:
a) The top elevations of the final intermediate soil cover layer.
b) The top elevations of the final compacted soil liner layer.
c) The top elevations of the final vegetation cover layer.
The survey shall be performed on a regular grid or triangular grid layout – ideally the same point locations
would be used for each layer based on the original construction grid; locations of each data point shall be
measured to a minimum accuracy of 0.01 feet on the horizontal and vertical; any stakes placed on the slopes
shall be removed and the holes backfilled with soil that is similar to the layer of interest; the backfill soil shall
be placed in maximum 9 inch thick loose lifts and compacted to approximately 6 inches thickness with a hand
tamp; lifts shall be measured directly down-hole with a stick or tape measure; the as-built drawings for each
layer shall be drawn as layer thickness contours paralleling the slopes, i.e., an thickness isopach map, with the
same 0.01 foot vertical accuracy. Digital data acquisition will be assumed.
5. These tests may be altered at the Engineer’s discretion, providing minimum standards of practice are
observed and the minimum project requirements are met.
4.0 CONTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0541)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 47
Table 4D
REFERENCE LIST OF ASTM TEST METHODS
ASTM C 136 Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
ASTM D 698 Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
(12,400 ft-lb/ft3).
ASTM D 1556 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone
Method.
ASTM D 2167 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Rubber
Balloon Method.
ASTM D 2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil
and Rock by Mass.
ASTM D 2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).
ASTM D 2922 Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear
Methods (Shallow Depth).
ASTM D 2937 Standard Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive Cylinder Method.
ASTM D 3017 Standard Test Method for Water Content of Soil and Rock in Place by Nuclear Methods
(Shallow Depth).
ASTM D 4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.
ASTM D 4643 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by the
Microwave Oven Method.
ASTM D 4959 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Direct
Heating Method.
ASTM D5084 Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous
Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
ASTM D 5993 Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit of Geosynthetic Clay Liners.
ASTM D6391 Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity Limits of
Porous Materials Using Two Stages of Infiltration from a Borehole
ASTM D 6768 Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength of Geosynthetic Clay Liners.
ASTM D 5321 Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and Geosynthetic or
Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear Method
ASTM D 7928 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils
Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis
ASTM WK38106 New Test Method for Particle Size Analysis for Soils Combining the Sieve and
Sedimentation Techniques
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 10/15/2018
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 48
5.1 General Conditions
This Operation Plan was prepared for the A-1 Sandrock Recycling (Processing) facility
and C&D landfill (CDLF) to provide the facility staff with an understanding of relevant
rules and how the Engineer assumes that the facility will be operated. While deviations
from the operation plan may be acceptable, changes should be reviewed by the and
approved by SWS.
5.1.1 Facility Description
The facility consists of CDLF and related activities located on a 75-acre tract, which is
isolated by natural barriers such as creeks and wooded tracts. The site originally comprised
a surface mine (borrow site) for “sandrock” (weathered granite) and other soils. Adequate
on-site soil resources are available to meet the operational needs of the CDLF. The landfill
is a permitted reclamation activity for the former mine that will restore the property to a
usable condition for future development. Recycling activities are required as a condition
of the Franchise Agreement with local government. The facility contains a CDLF
processing and disposal area, with recycling activities taking place near the working face,
a separate LCID processing area (no disposal) and a concrete processing area and stockpile.
5.1.2 Location and Surroundings
The facility entrance is located at 2091 Bishop Road, accessible from I-85 Business via
Holden Road or Groomtown Road. Bishop Road is paved and has a 45-mph posted speed
limit. The entrance to the facility was enhanced with turn lanes and a widening of Bishop
Road to improve visibility for traffic. Nearby facilities include an asphalt plant, other
mines and landfills, a trucking terminal, a MSW transfer station, and other businesses
which put heavy truck traffic on the road. The scales and office are located near the front
gate, which is the only means of accessing the site by the public. A few residences exist
within a mile of the facility on Bishop Road, which rely on ground water wells. The site
is located in the Deep River Reservoir watershed – protection of water quality is an
important issue in the permitting and operation of the facility. A regional fire department
is located one-mile to the west on Bishop Road.
5.1.3 Geographic Service Area
The service area authorized by the Guilford County Commissioners includes the entire
political boundaries of all counties within or touching a 50-mile radius from the facility.
The operator is responsible for knowing his customer base and waste stream characteristics,
such that the approved service area is observed.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 49
5.1.4 Waste Stream and Intake
The facility receives C&D and LCID debris from commercial haulers, contractors, and
private individuals. All materials are inert and meet the NC DENR Division of Waste
Management definitions. The facility expects to receive approximately 150 tons per day
(4000 tpm) of combined C&D wastes and LCID. The franchise allows up to 300 tons per
day. Much of the daily C&D intake will come from an affiliated waste hauling service.
The intake will be source-sorted with putrescible MSW excluded to the extent possible.
5.1.5 Hours of Operation
The facility is open to the public from 7 AM to 5 PM on Monday – Friday and 7 AM to 12
PM on Saturday. All current operations for the facility are within those hours.
5.2 Contact Information
5.2.1 Emergencies
For fire, police, or medical/accident emergencies dial 911.
5.2.2 A-1 Sandrock, Inc., Administrative Offices
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – Owner/Operator
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Owner/Operator
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
Tel. [phone]
5.2.3 North Carolina Department of Environment Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Section
Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources - Land Quality Section
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Phone: [phone]
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 50
5.3 Permitted Activities
This document was prepared in pursuit of a Permit to Operate from the NC DEQ Division
of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section, for construction of Phase 3 within the
permitted footprint and continued operation of Phases 1 – 3 (and future Phase 4) over a 5-
year operating cycle. The following is a comprehensive summary of the permitted solid
waste activities within the 75-acre facility, shown on Drawings E1 – E6:
Activities conducted under Permit #41-17 (Processing Facility):
•Receipt of wood wastes and inert debris (C&D and LCID)
•Sorting recyclables, shredding or grinding the wastes1
•Removal of incidental non-compliant wastes2
•Production of mulch, boiler fuel, aggregates3
•Temporary storage of products in roll off boxes4
Activities conducted under Permit #41-17 (CDLF disposal unit):
•Disposal of construction and demolition debris
•Disposal of asbestos wastes in a designated area
1 Primary recyclables include aggregates, wood wastes, and metals; aggregates derived from the two sources
may be combined, wood wastes derived from the two sources may be blended for fuel; typically, the C&D
wastes are better suited for boiler fuel, LCID wastes are better suited for mulching, thus the two waste streams
are typically not blended; no other blending shall occur
2 Includes MSW and other non-C&D wastes that inadvertently enter the C&D waste stream at construction
sites – these materials will be placed in roll-off boxes and taken to the nearby MSW transfer station on a
weekly basis; no MSW disposal shall occur at this facility
3 Materials typically will be distributed off-site, but some on-site use of mulch outside of the active C&D
unit will occur (with limitations on application rates), and aggregates may be used on-site; all non-fuel wood
wastes processed at the facility will be considered as mulch – not compost – with no nutrient value
4 Products typically include, metals, cardboard, and plastic containers.
Sorting and grinding activities will take place within the approved T&P and Storage areas,
located within the Facility Boundary but outside the CDLF footprint. Finished goods will
be stored outside the CDLF footprint. All these areas were originally approved for
disturbance and have drainage control measures. No processing or storage activities shall
occur within designated stream buffers, wetlands, or the 100-year floodplain. All activities
and areas are accessible via a single gate, which is secured after hours. Each permitted
activity is described in brief detail in Section 5.4.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 51
5.4 Description of Facilities
5.4.1 Processing Facility
The Owners of the facility intend to accept appropriate C&D and LCID wastes for
recycling. All incoming materials shall be accurately weighed, classified and recorded to
account for material flow. Intake materials shall be processed within the approved T&P
areas. Recycling activities may continue within the CDLF footprint at the Owner’s
discretion, including materials culled from the working face by the Operator. The
relocation of the T&P areas away from the CDLF is for public safety.
Tipping and processing areas – both inside and outside the CDLF – have runoff control
measures that can be isolated in the event of a spill of fuel, oil, or hazardous materials.
Operations shall be scheduled around the weather to minimize contact between the waste
and water – no grinding of C&D wastes shall take place in the rain. The Operator shall
manage stockpiles or storage containers in accordance with applicable fire protection and
runoff control measures. Section 6.4.4 provides further guidance on stockpiles.
The CDLF working face and processing area is restricted to trained personnel, i.e., staff
and commercial drivers. C&D unloading, processing and disposal areas must be separated
by a minimum of 50 feet. Non-processed materials scheduled for recycling shall be sorted
and placed in temporary stockpiles or containers. Recyclables may be processed and stored
within the CDLF footprint the Phase 1 footprint, subject to periodic cover requirements.
Areas A – E are designated for T&P activities and/or temporary soil storage described
below. All activities are subject to statutory timeframes for processing and relocation of
materials, as well as access requirements for firefighting:
•Area A is for Treatment and Processing of recycled concrete; storage up to
12,000 c.y. of unprocessed material; periodic crushing/grinding.
•Area B is for Treatment and Processing of LCID; temporary storage of up to
6,000 c.y. of unprocessed material; periodic grinding operations.
•Area C is for Treatment and Processing of LCID and wood waste, i.e, curing of
up to 6,000 c.y. of mulch in windrows (no composting); the cured materials may
be screened prior to relocation to finished bins located in a sales area outside the
Facility Boundary.
•Areas D and E are for temporary storage of operational soil and aggregates, with
estimated maximum quantities of 35,426 c.y. and 54,572 c.y., respectively;
subject to maintaining setbacks of ~50 feet from groundwater monitoring wells
and ~40 feet from LFG monitoring wells.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 52
Recyclable C&D materials shall be shipped to established markets or used on the premises
in a beneficial manner within the statutory timeframes. Non-recyclable C&D wastes shall
be disposed within the on-site C&D disposal facility. One or more roll-off boxes shall be
kept on-hand for inadvertent MSW that might come into the T&P facility, which shall be
removed on a weekly basis. Finished materials shall be removed (or turned) semi-annually
to prevent composting, except for aggregates and soil (see Section 5.7).
5.4.2 CDLF (Phases 1 – 4)
The CDLF is an unlined landfill encompassing 25.5 acres, approved circa February 2004.
Phases are sized to last approximately 5 years, coinciding with the 5-year Permit to Operate
cycle. All phases drain toward large perimeter channels, which in turn lead to the main
sedimentation basin.
•All E&S measures were designed in accordance with 15A NCAC 4 and were
approved by the (now) NCDEQ Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources.
•The edge of waste is clearly staked with permanent markers.
•Closure of various phases will be incremental, conducted in accordance with the
approved Closure/Post-Closure Plan.
•Financial Assurance requirements will be adjusted on a yearly basis to account for
new areas opening and those being closed.
•Operation of the C&D Landfill will be in strict accordance with Solid Waste rules,
including groundwater and landfill gas monitoring programs.
•Other applicable permits include the E&S program and a storm water certificate.
5.5 Facility Drawings
A copy of the approved Facility Plan and construction drawings must be kept on-site
always. Several sets of drawings submitted to various agencies exist, e.g., local
government site plan approval, the original mine permit application and solid waste
applications; revisions have occurred over time. The Engineer should be consulted to
resolve conflicts between drawings.
The Owner/Operator shall note the location of the active working face on the facility plan,
noting areas that have come to final grade and areas that are closed – the map shall be
updated continuously and filed with the Operating Record (Section 5.12). The drawings
show the locations of special waste disposal areas (i.e., asbestos), soil borrow and stockpile
areas.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 53
5.6 Staff Responsibilities
It is essential that every staff member understand the requirements of not only their
assigned tasks but of the regulatory and safety requirements for the entire facility. Each
worker should understand that the overall compliance of the facility affects not only their
position at the facility but the future ability to continue operations beyond the next 5-year
permit review. All staff should be vigilant about enforcing the waste acceptance policy
and to make sure that all aspects of the operation, from mowing the grass to the daily
transfer or disposal of waste, are conducted in an environmentally sound manner.
Every staff member shall receive instruction on “preventative maintenance” pertaining to
ground water and surface water quality, and how to protect these features, in addition to
waste acceptance criteria and operational requirements that pertain to each individual’s
specific duties. The critical importance of preserving environmental quality and
maintaining operational compliance should be a topic for discussion at regular staff
meetings, along with issues concerning safety and efficient operation of the facility.
In accordance with Rule .0542(j)(2), a trained operator must be on duty at all times when
the facility is open to the public and/or when operations are being conducted. All training
shall be documented, and Operator’s certifications shall be kept current.
5.7 Inspections and Maintenance
The following O&M schedule highlights some, but not all, of the major the requirements
for routine facility inspection and maintenance at both the recycling facility and the CDLF.
This schedule is intended to serve as a guide for the Owner/Operator for addressing short-
term and long-term issues, but the O&M schedule does not alleviate the Owner/Operator
of key rule requirements, whether they are covered here. Attention shall be paid to the
following:
•Collect trash and windblown debris around the scale, buildings, and areas outside
the working face daily in compliance with Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0542(g)(3).
•Note the date and time of cover placement (periodic and interim covers) in the
operating record in compliance with Rule .0542(f)(2).
The following tabulated summary for normal operations (see Sections 6.0 and 7.0) hereby
replaces the O&M Checklist presented in the 2009 permit application:
Daily
•Remove any Trash or Debris at Facility Entrance, Scales, Driveways, Ditches
•Remove any Trash or Debris around CDLF and Processing Areas, including Trees
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 54
•Check for Windblown Debris Escaping CDLF Working Face
•Verify All Waste Intake Processed and/or Disposed within 48 hours
•Verify Working Face under One-Half Acre (200 x 200 feet)
•Check Finished Goods Stockpiles for Foreign Materials or Trash
•File Waste Inspection Forms (Minimum 3 per Week)
Weekly
•Verify Working Face is Covered Weekly
•Verify Access Roads are Passable
•Check for Spills or Leaks on Roads, Processing and Storage Areas, Working Face
•Verify that Inactive Disposal Areas are Covered per Solid Waste Rules
•Check for Proper Drainage Conditions, Erosion, Sediment Buildup
•Inspect Gates, Locks, Fences, Signs
•Check Communication and Surveillance Equipment
•Check Mulch Stockpile Size (should be under 6000 cy)
Monthly
•Check for Excess Erosion on Slopes or Benches and Ditches
•Verify Vegetation is Healthy on Slopes, Ditches and Shoulders
•Verify that Sediment Basin Primary Outlet is Draining within 5 Days
Semi-Annually
•CDLF Slope Vegetation Mowed (Minimum Twice per Year)
•Inspect for CDLF Slopes Cracking, Sloughing, Bulging, Excess Erosion
•Turn or Remove Finished Mulch Stockpiles (Minimum Twice per Year)
•Mow Clear Access Paths to Monitoring Wells
Annually
•Staff Training Certifications Up to Date
•Annual Topographic Survey of CDLF
5.8 Access Control
5.8.1 Physical Restraints – The site is accessible by the single entrance gate. All
customers and visitors shall check-in upon arrival; all incoming waste-hauling vehicles
shall cross the scales. The entrance gates will be securely locked during non-operating
hours.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 55
5.8.2 Security – Frequent inspections of gates and fences will be performed by landfill
personnel. Evidence of trespassing, vandalism, or illegal operation will be reported to the
Owner. Attention shall be paid to the eastern Facility Boundary, where no fences exist and
only topography and vegetation are the physical barriers.
5.8.3 All-Weather Access – The on-site roads will be paved or otherwise hardened and
maintained for all-weather access.
5.8.4 Traffic – The Operator shall direct traffic to a waiting area, if needed, and onto the
working face with safe access to an unloading site is available. Once a load is emptied, the
delivery vehicle will leave the working face immediately.
5.8.5 Anti-Scavenging Policy – The removal of previously deposited waste by members
of the public (or the landfill staff) is strictly prohibited by the Division for safety reasons.
The Operator shall enforce this mandate and discourage loitering after a vehicle is
unloaded. No persons that are not affiliated with the landfill or having business at the
facility (i.e., customers) shall be allowed onto or near the working face.
5.8.6 Signage – A prominent sign containing the information required by the Division
shall be placed just inside the main gate. This sign will provide information on operating
hours, operating procedures, and acceptable wastes. Additional signage will be provided
within the landfill complex to distinctly distinguish access routes. Restricted access areas
will be clearly marked and barriers (e.g., traffic cones, barrels, etc.) will be used.
5.8.7 Communications – Visual and radio communications will be maintained between
the C&D landfill and the landfill scale house and field operators. The scale house has
telephones in case of emergency and for the conduct of day-to-day business. Emergency
telephone numbers (Fire and Rescue) are displayed in the scale house.
5.9 Fire and Safety
5.9.1 Fire Prevention – Stockpiles in the processing facility shall take measures to
prevent fires in the raw materials and finished goods. Stockpiles (and the disposal area)
shall be inspected daily for signs of smoke or combustion. All stockpiles shall be separated
by a minimum distance of 25 feet for access. Any single pile of combustible materials
shall be limited to 6,000 cy in size and turned on a semi-annual basis or when dictated by
temperature. If a stockpile is in place for more than six months, it shall be monitored for
dryness and temperature. A maximum allowable temperature shall be 120℉.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 56
Landfills shall be inspected daily for signs of smoke or combustion. Signs to look for
include cracks that are venting smoke or excessive steam and have elevated temperatures.
Mitigation of excess temperatures in landfills largely depends on the depth that the
temperatures occur. At lower depths, the level of oxygen is low enough that fire is less
likely to occur; access is limited. Elevated temperatures at shallow depths may require
mitigation, e.g., spreading the waste or sprinkling with water to cool the “hot spot.” Care
should be taken when excavating into waste to avoid ignition or flareups.
Fire Control – Fires in landfills and stockpiles (especially LCID facilities) have been a
regulatory concern in recent times. The possibility of fire within the landfill or a piece of
equipment must be anticipated. A combination of factory installed fire suppression systems
and/or portable fire extinguishers shall be kept operational on all heavy equipment. Brush
fires of within the waste may be smothered with soil, if combating the fire poses no danger
to the staff. The use of water to combat the fire is allowable, but soil is preferable. For
larger or more serious fire outbreaks, the local fire department will respond. In the event
of any size fire at the facility, the Owner shall contact NCDEQ Division Waste
Management personnel within 24 hours and complete a Fire Notification Form
(Appendix 4B) within 15 days, which will be placed in the Operating Record.
5.9.2 Personal Safety – Safety is a key concern with the operation of this facility. All
aspects of operation were planned with the health and safety of the landfill's operating staff,
customers, and neighbors in mind. Prior to commencing operations, a member of the
management staff will be designated as Site Safety Officer. This individual, together with
the Facility's management will modify the site safety and emergency response program as
needed to comply with National Solid Waste Management Association and Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance. Staff safety meetings (minimum one
per month) shall be conducted. Safety equipment to be provided includes (at a minimum)
equipment rollover protective cabs, seat belts, audible reverse warning devices, hard hats,
safety shoes, and first aid kits.
The working face of a landfill is an inherently dangerous place due to the movement of
heavy equipment, steep slopes, obstacles to pedestrian movement and sometimes poor
visibility (such as equipment backing up). These considerations are also a concern for the
sorting and grinding operations, as well as the concern for flying debris that can be ejected
from a tub grinder. Safety for customers will be promoted by the Operator and his staff by
always knowing where the equipment and customer vehicles are moving. Radio
communications between the scale house and the field staff will help keep track of the
location and movement of customers.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 57
The processing areas (C&D and/or LCID) and public access areas shall be located no
closer than 50 feet to the working face of the CDLF disposal unit. Signs, fences and/or
physical barriers will be used to separate public access areas from the working face of the
CDLF and the waste processing areas (sorting, grinding, etc.). Activities that could
endanger the public shall not be conducted when non-employees are present. Vehicles
transporting waste to the facility and/or the public shall not have access to the working
face. Children under the age of 16 shall not be allowed in the facility. No waste unloading,
grinding or disposal activities shall be conducted after dark.
5.10 Other Regulatory Requirements
5.10.1 Sedimentation and Erosion Control – All aspects of the facility operation are
subject to the requirements of 15A NCAC 4, the Sedimentation and Erosion Control rules.
Runoff measures for this facility were designed in accordance with this rule and approved
by the now NCDEQ Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources, Land Quality
Section. Approved S&EC measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the
operational life of the facility and into the post-closure period (see Closure/Post Closure
Plan, Section 7.0). Measures to curtail erosion include vegetative cover and woody mulch
as ground cover. Temporary “rain sheets” (or tarps) may be used control erosion of
stockpiled soils. Measures to control sedimentation include stone check dams in surface
ditches, sediment traps and basins. As of March 2013, all exposed soils, regardless of
whether they are inside or outside the disposal area, shall be vegetated or otherwise
stabilized within 15 days after any given area is brought to final grade.
5.10.2 Water Quality (Storm Water) Protection – This facility is covered by NC DEQ
Division of Water Quality Storm Water General Permit, NCG020000 – Certification
No. NCG020633. Compliance with the provisions of the permit – and the monitoring
requirements – is required. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan was prepared for
the facility, in accordance with the General Permit, which shall be observed and
incorporated into the daily operation of the facility. These documents are being reviewed
by the regulatory agencies and will be updated as deemed appropriate.
Steps to protect water quality include diverting surface water (“run-on”) away from the
disposal area, allowing no impounded water inside the disposal area, and avoiding the
placement of solid waste into standing water. The facility is obligated by law not to
discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (i.e. surface streams and wetlands).
Any conditions the Operator suspects might constitute a discharge should be mitigated
immediately – appropriate agencies and the Engineer should be contacted.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 58
5.11 Miscellaneous Requirements
5.11.1 Minimizing Surface Water Contact – Protection of water quality is a key interest
in the operation of this facility. Although C&D wastes are typically inert, there can be
chemical residues present in the C&D (e.g., solvents) that can mobilize upon contact with
water – i.e., leachate generation – and which can enter the environment via storm water
runoff. This tends to be more prevalent when the wastes are processed (sorted and ground)
due to increased surface area available to contact the water source and increased exposure
to ambient conditions.
Whereas the tipping and processing areas will be uncovered, the C&D processing facility
shall not be operated during rain events to minimize contact between the waste and
surface water, thus minimizing leachate generation. Activities pertaining to the
processing facility should be scheduled to accommodate the weather forecast. During
periods of light rain unloading may occur and sorting operations may occur if no runoff is
visible, but no grinding shall occur. During heavy rain (with visible runoff) or periods of
high wind the incoming (unprocessed) materials shall be stockpiled and covered with tarps
(secured against wind) or incorporated into the working face to minimize contact with
water. Processed materials (including source-sorted loads) shall be placed in appropriate
(covered) containers – i.e., transport trailers or roll-off boxes.
5.11.2 Processing Facility Operation over the CDLF – The Processing Facility
(tipping, sorting, loading) activities will move within the C&D footprint to be near the
working face of the CDLF unit, albeit a safe distance (minimum of 50 feet) shall be
maintained, to promote safety of workers and the public (Section 5.9.2). The Processing
Facility may be located atop an inactive portion of the CDLF unit.
When the Processing Facility is to be operated over an inactive portion of the CDLF, a
soil pad with a minimum thickness of 2 feet shall be placed beneath the processing
facility operational area (including the tipping and grinding areas), in addition to the
interim soil cover that might already be present (see Section 7.4.2).
The purpose of the supplemental operating soil pad is to protect the underlying wastes –
and water quality – against possible spills, leaks and/or the introduction of non-compliant
materials (liquids) that might escape detection in the preliminary screening. The soil pad
serves as a sorbent layer that can be removed in the case of an incident, minimizing the
chance of the incident affecting the ground water or surface water monitoring system, and
maintaining adequate coverage for the underlying wastes. The soil pad may be removed
at the end of the processing operation and/or prior to placement of final cover.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 59
5.11.3 Equipment Maintenance – Facility equipment consists of a variety of
excavators, loaders, dozers, dump trucks, and specialized equipment, e.g., a tub grinder for
LCID and a separate grinder with power screens for aggregates. Most of the equipment is
used in the normal course of mining operations. The Owner represents that he has
sufficient resources to provide and maintain the needed equipment to operate the facility.
A maintenance schedule for the facility equipment is beyond the scope of this Operations
Plan. The Operator (or their designee) should develop a routine equipment maintenance
program to lessen the likelihood of fluid spills or leaks. Fuel and lubricants shall be stored
always under covers and/or with secondary containment systems that are separate from the
principle storm water drainage systems. Care shall be taken when servicing or fueling
equipment to prevent spills.
Driveways, shop areas and all operations areas where heavy equipment is working shall be
inspected daily for signs of spills and leaks. Equipment should be parked overnight and
serviced in areas that will not contaminate the facility storm water management systems.
Care shall be taken not to allow any hazardous substance to enter the surface water or
ground water, including (but not limited to) fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, pesticides, and
herbicides. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and NC DEQ Storm Water
General Permit requirements shall be observed.
5.11.4 Utilities – Electrical power, water, telephone, and restrooms will be provided at
the scale house. Other sanitary facilities shall be provided for the field staff, as needed.
Two-way radios or cell phones shall be provided to the field staff for communication with
the scale house. Portable light plants may be required to promote safe operation of the
processing facility in the late afternoon or evening.
5.11.5 Vector Control – Steps shall be employed to minimize the risk of disease carrying
vectors associated with the landfill (e.g., birds, rodents, dogs, mosquitoes). The C&D
wastes should be mostly inert (subject to the waste screening procedures) and not attractive
to animals. Pools of standing water should be avoided.
5.11.6 Air Quality Criteria
Dust Control – Measures shall be taken to control dust from the operations. Dusty wastes
shall be covered immediately with soil and water shall be sprinkled on roads and other
exposed surfaces (including operational cover and/or the working face, as needed) to
control dust. Disposal activities may need to be suspended during high winds.
Open Burning – No open burning of any waste shall be allowed.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 60
State Implementation Plan – Compliance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
air quality under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as required by 15A NCAC 13B .0531 et
seq., is demonstrated with the following discussion. Typically, the SIP focuses on
industries that require air permits and activities that have regulated emissions that
contribute to unhealthy levels of ozone (NOx, SO4, VOC’s), particularly coal combustion
(electric power plants) and other “smokestack” industries. Compliance with the spirit of
the SIP is demonstrated by the prohibition of combustion of solid waste, the fact that the
wastes are generally inert and do not emit sufficient quantities of landfill gas to require
active controls (such as flaring), and the status of the regional attainment. The facility is
not located in a designated area of non-attainment for ozone and/or fine particle emissions.
Nonetheless, proactive steps that can be taken at the facility include dust control measures
(see below) to minimize airborne particle emissions: minimizing the idling time on trucks
and equipment, keeping mechanized equipment in good operating condition, and the use
of low-sulfur fuels, subject to availability. Adherence to the waste acceptance criteria will
minimize VOC emissions. Regular application of periodic cover will reduce the risk of
fires and curtail wind-blown debris. The proper use of vegetative cover will further
minimize fugitive emissions of dust and particulates.
5.11.7 Litter Control – Appropriate measures will be taken to control trash and
windblown debris within and around the facility, including litter on Bishop Road. The site
and entrance will be policed for litter on a weekly basis and such materials will be collected
and disposed of properly.
5.12 Operating Record
The Operating Record shall consist of one or more files, notebooks, or computerized
records and associated maps that document the day-to-day facility operations, including
the waste intake and sources, transfer records, routine waste placement, cover, and closure
activities (for the CDLF), and routine or special maintenance requirements and follow up
activities. The following records shall be maintained:
A Daily intake tonnage records - including source of generation
B Tonnage and type of recycled materials shipped offsite
C The locations and date of waste placement, interim cover placement, and
final cover placement shall be recorded on the facility map as these
activities are performed.
D Waste inspection records (on designated forms); fire notification forms;
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 61
E Quantity, location of disposal, generator, and special handling procedures
employed for all special wastes disposed of at the site
F Generators or haulers that have attempted to dispose of restricted wastes
G Employee training procedures and records of training completed
H Ground water quality monitoring information including:
1. Copy of the current Sampling and Analysis Plan (Monitoring Plan)
2. Monitoring well construction records
3. Sampling reports
4. Records of inspections, repairs, etc.
I Notation of the date and time of the cover placement (both periodic and
interim covers) must be recorded in the operating recorded in compliance
with Rule .0542(f)(2).
J Closure and post-closure information, where applicable, including:
1. Testing
2. Certification
3. Completion records
K Cost estimates for financial assurance documentation
L Annual topographic survey of the active disposal phase
M Records of operational problems or repairs needed at the facility, e.g., slope
maintenance, upkeep of SE&C measures, other structures
N Equipment maintenance records
O Daily rainfall records (via on-site rain gauge)
P Landfill gas monitoring information:
1. Quarterly methane monitoring records
2. Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control Plan
Q Updated Financial Assurance Documentation
R Compliance Audit Records (by the Solid Waste Section) and
documentation of follow up measures to ensure compliance
S Copies of the Operation Plan, Closure and Post Closure Plan,
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, Construction Drawings,
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Storm Water General Permit
Certificate of Coverage, and Solid Waste Permit
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 62
The Owner or their designee will keep the Operating Record up to date. Records shall be
presented upon request to DWM for inspection. A copy of this Operations Plan, along
with the Closure/Post-Closure Plan, the Monitoring Plan, and Monitoring Records
shall be on-premises and always available.
5.13 Annual Report
The facility shall file an annual report with the NC DEQ Division of Waste Management
by August 1 of each year, detailing the activities for the preceding July 1 through June 30.
Records shall include types and amounts of wastes received, reused, recycled, and
distributed. Material quantities shall be reported annually in tons.
The C&D landfill rules require an annual survey to determine slope, height, and volume
(see Section 7.5). The reporting requirements include an annual topographic map prepared
by a licensed surveyor. The map shall show areas that are stabilized with vegetation. The
Storm Water General Permit, issued by NC DEQ Division of Waste Quality, has an annual
sampling and reporting requirement.
5.14 Contingency Plan
5.14.1 Hot Loads Contingency – In the event of a "hot" load attempting to enter the
landfill, the scale house staff will turn away all trucks containing waste that is suspected to
be hot, unless there is imminent danger to the driver. The vehicle will be isolated away
from structures and other traffic and the fire department will be called. The vehicle will
not be allowed to unload until the fire is out. If a hot load is detected on the working face,
then the load will be treated as a fire condition (see Section 5.9), whereas the load will be
spread as thin as possible and cover soil will be immediately placed on the waste to
extinguish the fire. Other traffic will be redirected to another tipping area (away from the
fire), or other waste deliveries may be suspended until the fire is out. The fire will be
monitored to ensure it does not spread. If the fire cannot be controlled, the fire department
will be notified, and the area cleared of non-essential personnel.
5.14.2 Hazardous Waste Contingency – In the event identifiable hazardous waste or
waste of questionable character is detected at the scales or in the landfill, appropriate
protective equipment, personnel, and materials shall be employed to protect the staff and
public. Hazardous waste identification may be based on (but not limited to) strong odors,
fumes or vapors, unusual colors or appearance (e.g., liquids), smoke, flame, or excess dust.
The fire department will be called immediately if a hazardous material is detected.
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 63
An attempt will be made to isolate the wastes in a designated area where runoff is
controlled, preferably prior to unloading, and the vicinity will be cleared of personnel until
trained emergency personnel (fire or haz-mat) take control of the scene. Staff will act
prudently to protect personnel, but no attempt will be made to remove the material until
trained personnel arrive. A partial listing of regional Hazardous Waste Responders and
disposal firms is found in Appendix 4C.
The Operator will notify the Division (see Section 5.2.3) that an attempt was made to
dispose of hazardous waste at the landfill. If the vehicle attempting disposal of such waste
is known, attempts will be made to prevent that vehicle from leaving the site until it is
identified (license tag, truck number driver and/or company information) or, if the vehicle
leaves the site, immediate notice will be served on the owner of the vehicle that hazardous
waste, for which they have responsibility, has been disposed of at the landfill.
The landfill staff will assist the Division as necessary and appropriate in the removal and
disposition of the hazardous waste (acting under qualified supervision) and in the
prosecution of responsible parties. If needed, the hazardous waste will be covered with on-
site soils, tarps, or other covering until such time when an appropriate method can be
implemented to properly handle the waste. The cost of the removal and disposing of the
hazardous waste will be charged to the owner of the vehicle involved. Any vehicle owner
or operator who knowingly dumps hazardous waste in the landfill may be barred from
using the landfill or reported to law enforcement authorities.
Any hazardous waste found at the scales or in the landfill that requires mitigation under
this plan shall be documented by staff using the Waste Screening Form provided in
Appendix 4A. Records of information gathered as part of the waste screening programs
will be placed in the Operating Record and maintained throughout the facility operation.
5.14.3 Severe Weather Contingency – Inclement weather can affect the operation of the
landfill. Some anticipated conditions and recommended responses are as follows.
5.14.3.1 Ice Storms – An ice storm can hinder access to the landfill, prevent
movement or placement of periodic cover, and, thus, may require closure of the
landfill until the ice is removed or has melted and the access roads are passable
without risk to personnel of the side slopes cover.
5.14.3.2 Heavy Rains – Exposed soil surfaces can create a muddy situation in
some portions of the landfill during rainy periods. The control of drainage and use
of crushed stone (or recycled aggregates) on unpaved roads should provide all-
5.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 64
weather access for the site and promote drainage away from critical areas. In areas
where the aggregate surface is washed away or otherwise damaged, aggregate
should be replaced. Intense rains can affect newly constructed drainage structures
such as swales, diversions, cover soils, and vegetation. After such a rain event,
inspection by landfill personnel will be initiated and corrective measures taken to
repair any damage found before the next rainfall.
Processing activities should be planned to avoid sorting and grinding during
periods of rain. Ideally, waste deliveries should be suspended until the rain
passes, but if unloading in the rain cannot be avoided, the debris piles should be
kept small as possible and covered with tarps. Sorting should be completed as
soon as practical and all materials cleared from the tipping area to avoid contact
with rain or runoff.
5.14.3.3 Electrical Storms – The open area of a landfill is susceptible to the
hazards of an electrical storm. If necessary, landfill activities will be temporarily
suspended during such an event. To promote the safety of field personnel, refuge
will be taken in buildings or in rubber-tire vehicles.
5.14.3.4 Windy Conditions – High winds can create windblown wastes, typically
paper and plastic, but larger objects have been known to blow in extreme
circumstances. Operations should be suspended if blowing debris becomes a
danger to staff, after the working face is secured. The proposed operational
sequence minimizes the occurrence of unsheltered operations relative to prevailing
winds. If this is not adequate during a particularly windy period, work will be
temporarily shifted to a more sheltered area.
When this is done, the previously exposed face will be immediately covered with
periodic cover. Soil cover shall be applied whenever windblown wastes become a
problem. Staff shall patrol the perimeter of the landfill periodically, especially on
windy days, to remove windblown litter from tress and adjacent areas.
Windscreens of various sorts have been used with mixed success at other facilities
in the region. Proper planning for windy conditions is essential.
5.14.3.5 Violent Storms – In the event of a hurricane, tornado, or severe winter
storm warning issued by the National Weather Service, landfill operations shall be
suspended temporarily until the warning is lifted. Periodic cover will be placed on
exposed waste and buildings and equipment will be properly secured. In the event
of eminent danger to staff or the public, personal safety shall take precedence over
other concerns.
6.0 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 10/15/2018
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 65
6.1 Overview
This section describes the general waste intake and handling operations for the Treatment
and Processing (Recycling) facility. These protocols shall be followed, regardless of
whether the material is source-sorted and delivered by affiliated waste transport vehicles
or brought to the facility by private contractors or the public. These protocols are
applicable to recycling activities conducted near the working face of the CDLF and within
T&P Areas A – E (used for concrete, LCID, wood waste, soil and aggregates). No C&D
wastes described below shall be placed in the T&P Areas A – E.
6.2 Acceptable Wastes
The Facility shall only accept these waste types generated within approved service area:
•Construction Debris: Unpainted and untreated wood, plywood, particle board,
hardboard, gypsum board, siding, flooring, asphalt shingles, etc., from new residential
or commercial construction; acceptable only within the CDLF footprint.
•Demolition Debris: Concrete, brick, block and asphalt will be accepted; unpainted and
untreated wood, roofing, insulation, piping, wallboard, siding, etc., from residential and
commercial remodeling, repair, or demolition operations, will be accepted after the
Facility produces certificates of training for the staff pertaining to the identification
and safe handling of hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, lead paint); acceptable only
within the CDLF footprint.
•Land Clearing and Inert Debris: Stumps, trees, limbs, brush, other vegetation,
concrete, brick, concrete block, clean soils and rock, untreated/unpainted wood, etc.;
acceptable within T&P Areas A – E.
6.3 Prohibited Wastes
No municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste as defined by 15A NCAC 13A .0102,
including hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG
waste), or liquid waste will be accepted at this facility. In addition, no tires, batteries,
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste, electronic devices (computer monitors), or mercury
switches and fluorescent lamps will be accepted. Animal carcasses will not be accepted.
No oils, grease, solvents, or fluids of any kind will be accepted, nor will bagged wastes or
any putrescible or household wastes. A partial listing of prohibited wastes is presented on
Table 6A following this section.
6.0 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 66
6.4 Waste Processing
To assure that no prohibited waste enters the Facility, a waste screening program will be
implemented (see Section 6.4.1). Waste received at the scale house will be inspected by
trained personnel. These individuals will be trained to spot indications of suspicious
wastes, including: hazardous material placards or markings, liquids, powders or dusts,
sludges, bright or unusual colors, drums or commercial size containers, and "chemical"
odors. Screening programs for visual and olfactory characteristics of prohibited wastes will
be an ongoing part of the Facility operation.
6.4.1 Waste Receiving and Screening
All incoming vehicles must stop at the scale house located near the entrance of the facility
and visitors are required to sign-in. All waste transportation vehicles shall be uncovered
prior to entering the scales to facilitate inspection. All incoming loads shall be weighed,
and the content of the load assessed. The attendant shall request from the driver of the
vehicle a description of the waste it is carrying to ensure that unacceptable waste is not
allowed into the Facility. Signs informing users of acceptable and unacceptable types of
waste shall be posted near the facility entrance. The attendant shall visually check the
vehicle as it crosses the scale. Suspicious loads will be pulled aside for inspection prior to
leaving the scale area. Loads with unacceptable materials or wastes generated from outside
of the service area will be directed to the nearby Transfer Station.
Once passing the scales, incoming transport vehicles will be routed to the tipping area for
unloading, inspection, sorting and appropriate processing, depending on the nature of the
load – C&D and LCID materials will go to separate areas (Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3).
Incoming vehicles shall be selected at random for screening a minimum of three times
per week. The selection of vehicles for screening might be based on unfamiliarity with the
vehicle/driver or based on the driver’s responses to interrogation about the load content.
Vehicles selected for inspection shall be directed to an isolated area away from the
stockpile of materials, where the vehicle will be unloaded, and the waste shall be carefully
spread using suitable equipment. An attendant trained to identify unacceptable wastes shall
inspect the waste, using the Waste Screening Form (Appendix 4A) to document the waste
screening activity. After the waste screening inspection of a load, one of the following
activities will occur:
•If no unacceptable waste is found, the load will be pushed to the active recycling
area and processed with the remainder of the day’s intake;
•If unacceptable materials are found, the entire load will be isolated and secured via
barricades, then loaded into roll-off boxes for disposal at a permitted facility;
6.0 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 67
•Non-hazardous materials will be reloaded onto the delivery vehicle for removal
from the facility, the hauler will be escorted to the nearby MSW Transfer Station;
•If hazardous materials are detected, the Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan
outlined in Section 5.14 will be followed.
The hauler will be responsible for removing unacceptable waste from the Facility. The
rejection of the load shall be noted on the Waste Screening Form, along with the
identification of the driver and vehicle. A responsible party to the load generator or hauler
shall be notified that the load was rejected. The generator or hauler may be targeted for
more frequent waste screening and/or banished from delivering to the facility, depending
on the nature of the violation of the waste acceptance policy. State and County authorities
may be notified of severe or repeat offenders.
Facility staff at the tipping area and on the working face may detect unacceptable waste
after it is unloaded, and the delivery vehicle has departed. One or more roll-off boxes will
be kept on-site for keeping materials that require disposal in a MSWLF. Such “rejects”
will be placed into the roll-off boxes and removed from the site for disposal at an approved
facility, e.g. the nearby Transfer Station on Bishop Road or another approved MSW
facility. The roll-off boxes will be removed on a weekly basis.
6.4.2 LCID Processing
The Facility may recycle LCID to make mulch, boiler fuel, and aggregates. LCID wastes
generally consist of brush, limbs, tree trunks, stumps, leaves, dirt, inert debris, and other
materials defined by the NC DENR Solid Waste rules. LCID materials may be stockpiled
and shredded or ground within a designated area (in a future CDLF phase) but separated
from the CDLF working face. Some LCID materials may be combined with similar C&D
materials post-processing – e.g., wood wastes that can be ground into boiler fuel or mulch
and inert debris that can be processed into aggregates. LCID materials shall not be
commingled with other materials prior to processing, except for concrete debris.
6.4.3 C&D Processing
The Facility may recycle C&D wastes aggregates, boiler fuel, mulch, and beneficial fill.
C&D materials may arrive source-sorted, having been transported by an affiliated hauler;
other recyclable material may be culled from the working face. Sorting will take place at
least 50 feet from the active CDLF tipping area and/or working face, with appropriate
runoff controls and S&EC measures in place. The sorted materials will be redirected to
appropriate stockpiles and/or roll-off boxes and temporarily stored for further processing
(see below). Non-recyclable C&D materials will be pushed into the CDLF working face
6.0 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 68
(see Section 7.0). Co-mingling of pre-process or interim stage processed materials from
the C&D and LCID waste streams will NOT be allowed (except for concrete debris).
Separate stockpiles or containers shall be maintained.
6.4.4 Stockpile Guidance
Temporary storage areas A – E provide considerable space for managing bulky materials,
intended to enhance the recycling capabilities and safety of the Facility. The volume of
non-processed and finished recyclable materials which the Facility may have on premises
will be limited by the availability of space needed to conduct compliant operations.
NCGS 130A 309.05(c)(1) requires seventy-five percent (75%), by weight or volume, of
the recovered material stored at a facility at the beginning of a calendar year
commencing January 1, shall be removed from the facility through sale, use, or reuse by
December 31 of the same year.
Placement and sizing of stockpiles need to incorporate factors of safe operation, required
storage time, and fire prevention. Stockpiles must be separated by at least 25 feet of clear
space to allow access by fire-fighting equipment. Stockpiles should be easily reached with
equipment and exhibit maximum 2H:1V side slope ratios for stability. The following table
provides height and base dimensions for certain stockpile volumes at various heights.
Height of
Pile, ft
Top of Pile
Diameter, ft
Bottom of Pile
Diameter, ft
Average Cross
Section Area, sf
Volume,
cy
20 20 100 60 2,093
20 40 80 80 3,721
25 20 120 70 3,562
25 40 140 90 5,887
30 20 140 80 5,582
6.4.5 Processing to Finishing Goods
Processing activities shall be limited to grinding, shredding, or chipping land clearing
debris, unpainted/untreated wood waste (including pallets and new construction waste),
and certain engineered wood products (plywood, particle board), to make boiler fuel or
mulch (but not compost). Inert materials will be processed and recycled into aggregates.
The operation of the Processing Facility will include the following:
•Pre-processed sorted C&D (raw materials) will be stockpiled temporarily in the
designated processing areas, either adjacent to the working face or in Areas A – C.
6.0 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 69
•Woody materials suitable for making mulch and/or boiler fuel (including pallets)
will be ground or shredded on a monthly schedule and stockpiled in designated
areas (on the ground) and/or shipping containers.
•Earthen inert materials (dirt, rocks, concrete debris) suitable for “beneficial fill”
(defined by Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0562) and/or processing into aggregates will be
ground or shredded and stockpiled in designated areas.
•Metals will be placed in roll-off boxes and kept clean and ready to haul to off-site
recycling operations until a full load is reached.
•NC DEQ guidelines apply for storing and processing asphalt shingles intended for
recycling (see Section 6.4.8). Source-sorted, new (non-asbestos), tear-off asphalt
shingles may be stored for recycling. Shingles accepted for disposal only should
be sent to the working face. No grinding of shingles shall be conducted onsite.
6.4.6 Non-Processed Material Storage
Individual stockpiles of non-unprocessed materials (not stored in roll-off boxes) shall be
kept to 6,000 c.y. per stockpile. Wood wastes should not be stored more than 3 months
unless temperatures are monitored. If the intake of wood waste exceeds the ability for
timely processing and sales, the intake of wood waste may be curtailed or diverted to the
CDLF. Inert materials (concrete, soil) must be stabilized to minimize runoff and erosion.
6.4.7 Processed Material Storage
Finished combustible materials, e.g., boiler fuel and mulch (see Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3)
may be stored for no more than 6 months in stockpiles not exceeding 6,000 c.y. per pile.
If stockpiles of finished products must remain on site longer, the stockpiles shall be wetted
as needed and turned semi-annually to prevent composting and/or fires (see Section 5.5).
Non-combustible materials do not pose a fire hazard and may be stockpiled for no more
than one year, providing fire prevention and erosion control requirements are observed.
6.4.8 Asphalt Shingle Storage for Recycling
The Owner/Operator shall only accept new tear-off asphalt shingles for storage, typically
from contractors they know. No grinding of shingles shall be conducted at the facility.
Source-sorted shingles shall be placed into roll off boxes or temporary stockpiles as
separate loads. Documentation for the source for each load shall be retained. A detailed
plan for documenting the intake and distribution (i.e., to a licensed recycler) of asphalt
shingles is found in Appendix 4D. Post-consumer asphalt shingles (PCAS), i.e. old
shingles, may contain asbestos and shall not be stored or processed at this facility.
6.0 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 70
Asphalt shingles arriving without documentation or in mixed loads may be accepted for
disposal, but these materials shall not go through the processing line and should be sent to
the working face. Acceptance and storage of documented asphalt shingles for off-site
recycling may take place within the current T&P area on top of the CDLF, at least 50 feet
away from the working face alongside other recycling activities. The facility is only
authorized to receive and store asphalt shingles at present. The facility must adhere to
NCDEQ’s documentation requirements outlined in Appendix 4D to maintain operational
compliance. Should the facility opt to grind shingles into a recycled byproduct in the
future, an additional Solid Waste Processor permit application and an asbestos screening
plan will be prepared to supplement this operational.
6.5 Contingency Plan
Refer to Section 5.14
6.6 Annual Reporting
Refer to Sections 5.12 and 5.13
6.0 PROCESSING FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 71
Table 6A
PROHIBITED WASTES AT THE PROCESSING FACILITY*
•Putrescible wastes (garbage and/or food wastes)
•Sludges of any kind
•Hazardous wastes: Pesticides
Herbicides
Used motor oil
Antifreeze
Solvents
Paint thinners
•Hazardous materials as defined by 15A NCAC 13A
•Radioactive materials
•Lead acid batteries
•Regulated medical wastes
•Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes
•White Goods
•Liquid wastes
•Animal carcasses
•Asbestos wastes
•Yard Wastes
•Tires
•Electronic equipment
•Mercury switches or lamps
*References: 15A NCAC 13B .0103
15A NCAC 13B .1626
All materials must dry enough to pass a paint-filter test.
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 10/15/2018
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 72
7.1 Waste Acceptance Criteria
7.1.1 Permitted Wastes
The C&D Landfill shall only accept (for disposal) the following wastes generated within
approved areas of service:
•Construction and Demolition Debris Waste: (Waste or debris derived from
construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on pavement or
other structures);
•Land Clearing and Inert Debris Waste: (yard waste, stumps, trees, limbs,
brush, grass, concrete, brick, concrete block, uncontaminated soils and rock,
untreated and unpainted wood, etc.);
•Other Wastes as approved by the NC DENR Solid Waste Section.
7.1.2 Asbestos
A-1 Sandrock may dispose of asbestos containing materials (ACM) within the C&D
landfill, or within a special designated area, only if the asbestos has been processed and
packaged in accordance with State and Federal (40 CFR 61) regulations. Handling
asbestos requires advance arrangements between the hauler and the landfill and special
placement techniques (see (Section 7.3.5). Locations and dates of ACM burial sites shall
be recorded on the facility map.
7.1.3 Wastewater Treatment Sludge
Sludges of any kind shall not be disposed in the C&D Landfill, per Division rules. Waste
Water Treatment Plant sludge may be used as a soil conditioner to enhance the final cover,
upon receipt of permission from the Division, to be applied at agronomic rates.
7.2 Waste Exclusions
No municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste as defined by 15A NCAC 13A .0102,
or hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG waste),
sludges or liquid wastes will be accepted. No drums or industrial wastes shall be accepted.
No tires, batteries, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), electronic devices (computer
monitors), medical wastes, radioactive wastes, septage, white goods, yard trash, fluorescent
lamps, mercury switches, lead roofing materials, transformers, or CCA treated wood shall
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 73
be accepted. No pulverized or shredded C&D wastes may be accepted – except those
materials received and inspected in a whole condition and shredded on-site. The Facility
will implement a waste-screening program, described in Section 7.3 below, to control these
types of waste. Solid Waste Rule .0542 (e) contains further exclusions (see Table 7.1 at
the end of this section).
7.3 Waste Handling Procedures
To assure that prohibited wastes are not entering the landfill facility, screening programs
have been implemented at the landfill. Waste received at both the scale house entrance
and waste taken to the working face is inspected by trained personnel. These individuals
have been trained to spot indications of suspicious wastes, including: hazardous placards
or markings, liquids, powders or dusts, sludges, bright or unusual colors, drums or
commercial size containers, and "chemical" odors. Screening programs for visual and
olfactory characteristics are an ongoing part of the landfill operation.
7.3.1 Waste Receiving and Inspection
All incoming vehicles must stop at the scale house located near the entrance of the facility,
and visitors are required to sign-in. All waste transportation vehicles shall be uncovered
prior to entering the scales to facilitate inspection; all incoming loads shall be weighed, and
the content of the load assessed. The scale attendant shall request from the driver of the
vehicle a description of the waste it is carrying to ensure that unacceptable waste is not
allowed into the landfill.
Signs informing users of the acceptable and unacceptable types of waste shall be posted at
the entrance near the scale house. The scales attendant shall visually check the vehicle as
it crosses the scale. Any suspicious loads will be pulled aside for a more detailed inspection
prior to leaving the scale house area. Loads with unacceptable materials will be required
to be covered (with a tarp) and turned away from the facility. Wastes from outside of the
service area will be rejected.
Once passing the scales, the vehicles containing C&D wastes are routed to the working
face. Vehicles shall be selected for random screening a minimum of three times per
week. The selection of vehicles for screening might be based on unfamiliarity with the
vehicle/driver or based on the driver’s responses to interrogation about the load content.
The Operator shall use the Waste Screening Form (see Appendix 4A) to document the
waste screening activities. Documentation of three random waste screenings shall be
placed in the Operational Record (see Section 5.12).
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 74
Selected vehicles shall be directed to an area of intermediate cover adjacent to the working
face where the vehicle will be unloaded, and the waste shall be carefully spread using
suitable equipment. An attendant trained to identify wastes that are unacceptable at the
landfill shall inspect the waste discharged at the screening site. If no unacceptable waste
is found, the load will be pushed to the working face and incorporated into the waste cell.
•If unacceptable wastes that are non-hazardous are found, the load will be
reloaded onto the delivery vehicle and directed to the Transfer Station.
•For unacceptable wastes that are hazardous, the Hazardous Waste
Contingency Plan outlined in Section 5.14 will be followed.
The hauler is responsible for removing unacceptable waste from the landfill property. The
rejection of the load shall be noted on the Waste Screening Form, along with the
identification of the driver and vehicle. A responsible party to the load generator or hauler
shall be notified that the load was rejected. The generator or hauler may be targeted for
more frequent waste screening and/or banished from delivering to the facility, depending
on the nature of the violation of the waste acceptance policy. If the violation is repetitive
or severe enough, State and/or County authorities may be notified.
7.3.2 Disposal of Rejected Wastes
Attempts will be made to inspect waste as soon as it arrives in order to identify the waste
hauler; ideally, the hauler can be stopped from leaving the site and the rejected materials
reloaded onto the delivery vehicle. Non-allowed materials that are found in the waste
during sorting or placement, i.e., after the delivery vehicle has left the site, shall be taken
to the on-site Transfer Station.
Small quantities of garbage (chiefly food containers) will inevitably wind up in the C&D
waste stream from job sites. These may be disposed with the C&D wastes providing the
materials are non-liquid and non-hazardous. If large quantities of garbage, “black bags”
or any prohibited wastes are detected, the Operator shall be responsible for removing these
materials and placing them into the Transfer Station at the earliest practical time.
7.3.3 C&D Disposal Procedures
Waste transportation vehicles will arrive at the working face at random intervals. There
may be many vehicles unloading waste at the same time, while other vehicles are waiting.
To maintain control over the unloading of waste, only a certain number of vehicles will be
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 75
allowed on the working face at a time. The superintendent and/or equipment operator(s),
who will serve as ‘spotters’, will determine the actual number. This procedure will be used
to minimize the potential of unloading unacceptable waste and to control disposal activity.
Operations at the working face will be conducted in a manner that will promote the efficient
movement of vehicles to and from the working face, and to expedite the unloading of waste.
At no time during normal business hours will the working face be left unattended. Scale
house and field staff shall be in constant communication regarding incoming loads and the
movement of vehicles on the site, irrespective of facility vehicles or private vehicles. It is
the responsibility of the working face superintendent to know always where each vehicle
in the facility is located and what they are doing.
Portable signs with directional arrows and barricades will be used to direct traffic to the
correct unloading area. The approaches to the working face will be maintained such that
two or more vehicles may safely unload side by side. A vehicle turn-around area large
enough to enable vehicles to arrive and turn around safely with reasonable speed will be
provided adjacent to the unloading area. The vehicles will back to a vacant area near the
working face to unload. Upon completion of the unloading operation, the transportation
vehicles will immediately leave the working face. Personnel will direct traffic as necessary
to expedite safe movement of vehicles.
Waste unloading at the landfill will be controlled to prevent disposal in locations other than
those specified by site management. Such control will also be used to confine the working
face to a minimum width yet allow safe and efficient operations. The width and length of
the working face will be maintained as small as practical to control windblown waste,
preserve aesthetics, and minimize the amount of required periodic cover.
Normally, only one working face will be active on any given day, with all deposited waste
in other areas covered by either periodic or final cover, as appropriate. The procedures for
placement and compaction of solid waste include: unloading of vehicles, spreading of
waste into 10-foot lifts, and compaction on relatively flat slopes (i.e., 5H: IV max.) using
a minimum number of three full passes. Depending on the nature of the wastes and long-
term volume analysis of in-situ density, the waste placement geometry and compaction
procedures may require adjustment to optimize airspace.
7.3.4 Spreading and Compaction
The working face shall be restricted to the smallest possible area; ideally, the maximum
working face area with exposed waste shall be one-quarter to one-half acre. Wastes shall
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 76
be compacted as densely as practical. Appropriate methods shall be employed to reduced
wind-blown debris including (but not limited to) the use of wind fences, screens, temporary
soil berms, and periodic cover. Any wind-blown debris shall be recovered and placed back
in the landfill and covered at the end of each working day.
7.3.5 Special Wastes: Asbestos Management
Any asbestos handling and disposal will follow specific NC DENR regulations with proper
shipping manifests and documentation of disposal. Asbestos shall arrive at the site in
vehicles that contain only the asbestos waste and only after advance notification by the
generator and if accompanied by a proper NC DMV transport manifest. Once the hauler
brings the asbestos to the landfill, operations personnel will direct the hauler to the
designated asbestos disposal area. Operations personnel will prepare the designated
disposal area by leveling a small area using a dozer or loader. Prior to disposal, the landfill
operators will stockpile cover soil near the designated asbestos disposal area. The volume
of soil stockpiled will be sufficient to cover the waste and to provide any berms, etc. to
maintain temporary separation from other landfill traffic.
Once placed in the prepared area, the asbestos waste will be covered with a minimum of
18 inches of daily cover soil placed in a single lift. The surface of the cover soil will be
compacted and graded using a tracked dozer or loader. The landfill compactor will be
prohibited from operating over asbestos disposal areas until at least 18 inches of cover are
in-place. The landfill staff shall record the location and elevation of the asbestos waste
once cover is in-place. Records of the disposal activity shall be entered into the Operating
Record. Once disposal and recording for asbestos waste is completed, the disposal area
may be covered with C&D waste. No further excavation into recorded asbestos disposal
areas will be permitted.
7.4 Cover Material
7.4.1 Periodic Cover
The working face of the CDLF shall be covered on a weekly basis, or sooner if the area
of exposed waste exceeds one-half acre in size. Periodic cover shall consist of a 6-inch
layer of earthen material that completely covers the waste to control vectors, fire, odors,
and blowing debris. Alternative periodic cover may be considered, subject to a
demonstration project with prior approval from the Division. Placement of periodic cover
shall be documented in the Operating Record (see Section 5.12) and on a copy of the
facility map.
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 77
7.4.2 Interim Soil Cover
An interim soil cover (at least 24 inches in thickness) shall be placed on inactive slopes,
subject to the following conditions:
•Interior slopes adjacent to future expansion (such as a cell or phase boundary) no
later than 30 days following the last waste receipt, providing that further waste
disposal will occur within one year of the last waste receipt*
•Exterior slopes that have attained final grade are to be left for no more than 15
working days without temporary vegetation, until an area of no more than 10 acres
is ready to be closed simultaneously. **
*North Carolina Solid Waste Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0543 requires final cover to be placed
if the slope shall remain inactive for more than one year
**Typically, it is advantageous to close the final slopes in 2 to 3-acre increments, observing
the placement of erosion control benches; 10 acres is the regulatory maximum
Interim cover soils shall be vegetated in accordance with the Seeding Schedule presented
in the Facility Drawing EC5. Either temporary or permanent vegetation may be required
– and alternate ground cover may be considered – depending on the time duration of
inactivity. Placement of interim cover shall be documented in the Operating Record.
7.4.3 Final Cover
Exterior slopes shall be closed upon reaching final grades in increments throughout the
operation of the facility. Placement of final cover shall conform to the design and CQA
requirements presented in the Closure and Post-Closure Plan (Section 8.0) and shall be
documented in the Operating Record and on a copy of the facility map.
The permitted final cover consists of a minimum of 18 inches of compacted soil cover
(maximum 10-5 cm/sec permeability requirement), overlain by 18 inches of vegetation
support soil. In general, the final soil cover shall be spread in three uniform lifts (maximum
of 9 inches before compaction, 6 inches after compaction), and soils shall be compacted by
“tracking” with dozers or other equipment. North Carolina Solid Waste regulations require
a maximum permeability, achieved through proper material selection and compaction
criteria, confirmed by the testing program outlined in the CQA section of the Closure and
Post-Closure Plan.
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 78
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Rule 15A NCAC 04B .0107, MANDATORY
STANDARDS FOR LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY, states as follows: “Pursuant to
G.S. 113A-57(3), provisions for a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be
accomplished within 15 working days or 90 calendar days following completion of
construction or development, whichever period is shorter.” Prior to May 2013 the rule
required that all disturbed soils shall be stabilized within 20 days following completion of
the grading. The facility’s interpretation is that all slopes must be vegetated with a seed
mix that is suitable to climatic conditions (see construction plans) within 15 days. All
seeded areas should be provided with lime, fertilizer and straw mulch. An emulsified tack
may be required to prevent wind damage. Other stabilization treatments, e.g., curled wood
matting of synthetic slope stabilization blankets may be employed.
At the operator’s discretion, wood mulch may be spread evenly over the final surfaces – at
a maximum thickness of 2 inches – to help retain moisture and retard erosion while the
vegetation develops. By SWS definition this material is not recognized to provide nutrient
value but the partial decomposition of the wood mulch over time does introduce organic
content to the soils, which were typically derived from deep within the borrow pit.
Typically, the mulch takes about a year to break down and does benefit the effort of
establishing vegetation, as long as the mulch is not applied too thick. This allows the
operator some flexibility is establishing vegetation at optimum times. A nurse crop of
seasonal vegetation can be sown at the time the slopes are finished and a permanent crop
can be sown later, typically requiring manual sowing to prevent damaging the existing
vegetation. All protective measures must be maintained until permanent ground cover
is established and is sufficient to restrain erosion on the site.
If settlement occurs after the cover is placed, the cover shall be fortified with additional
soil. In the case of extreme settlement (unlikely), the old cover can be stripped and the
affected area built up with waste prior to replacing the cover. The sedimentation and
erosion control criteria governing the final closure of this facility are performance-based;
some trial and error may be required, but the goal is to protect the adjacent water bodies
and buffers throughout the operational and post-closure periods.
7.5 Survey for Compliance
7.5.1 Height Monitoring
The landfill staff will monitor landfill top and side slope elevations on a weekly basis or as
needed to ensure proper slope ratios, in accordance with the approved grading plan, and to
ensure the facility is not over-filled. This shall be accomplished by use of a surveyor’s
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 79
level and a grade rod. When such elevations approach the grades shown on the Final Cover
Grading Plan, the final top-of-waste grades will be staked by a licensed surveyor to limit
over-placement of waste.
7.5.2 Annual Survey
The working face shall be surveyed on an annual basis to verify slope grades and to track
the fill progression. In the event of problems (slope stability, suspected over-filling), more
frequent surveys may be required at the request of the Division.
7.6 Contingency Plan
Refer to Section 5.14
7.7 Annual Reporting
Refer to Sections 5.12 and 5.13
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 80
Table 7A
PROHIBITED WASTES IN THE CDLF UNIT**
(1) Containers such as tubes, drums, barrels, tanks, cans, and bottles unless they are
empty and perforated to ensure that no liquid, hazardous or municipal solid waste
is contained therein,
(2) Garbage as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (7),
(3) Hazardous waste as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (8), to also include hazardous
waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators,
(4) Industrial solid waste unless a demonstration has been made and approved by
the Division that the landfill meets the requirements of Rule .0503(2) (d) (ii) (A),
(5) Liquid wastes,
(6) Medical waste as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (18),
(7) Municipal solid waste as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (18a),
(8) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes as defined in 40 CFR 761,
(9) Radioactive waste as defined in G.S. 104E-5(14),
(10) Septage as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (32),
(11) Sludge as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (34),
(12) Special wastes as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (40),
(13) White goods as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (44), and
(14) Yard trash as defined in G.S. 130A-290(a) (45),
(15) The following wastes cannot be received if separate from C&DLF waste:
•lamps or bulbs, e.g., halogen, incandescent, neon or fluorescent;
•lighting ballast or fixtures;
•thermostats and light switches;
•batteries, e.g., those from exit and emergency lights and smoke detectors;
•lead pipes;
•lead roof flashing;
•transformers;
•capacitors; and
•copper chrome arsenate (CCA) and creosote treated woods.
7.0 C&D LANDFILL OPERATIONS PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0542)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 81
(16) Waste accepted for disposal in a C&DLF unit must be readily identifiable as
C&D waste and must not have been shredded, pulverized, or processed to such an
extent that the composition of the original waste cannot be readily ascertained
except as specified in Subparagraph (17) of this Paragraph.
(17) C&D waste that has been shredded, pulverized or otherwise processed may be
accepted for disposal from a facility that has received a permit from an authorized
regulatory authority which specifies such activities are inspected by the authority,
and whose primary purpose is recycling and reuse of the C&D material. A waste
screening plan and waste acceptance plan must be made available to the Division
upon request.
(18) Waste that is generated outside the boundaries of a unit of local government
ordinance (i.e., areas not approved by County Commissioners).
**Reference: 15A NCAC 13B .0542
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 10/15/2018
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 82
8.1 Summary of Regulatory Requirements
8.1.1 Final Cap
The final cap design for all phases of the CDLF shall conform to the minimum
requirements of the Solid Waste Rules, i.e., the compacted soil barrier layer shall exhibit a
thickness of 18 inches and a field permeability of not more than 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec. The
overlying vegetative support layer shall be 18 inches thick. Drawing E6 shows final
contours and Drawings EC1 – EC3 show final cover cross-section and details.
8.1.2 Construction Requirements
Final cap installation shall conform to the approved plans (see accompanying plan set),
inclusive of the approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan. The CQA plan must
be followed (see Section 4.0) and all CQA documentation must be submitted to the
Division. Post-settlement surface slopes must not be flatter than 5% on the upper cap and
not steeper than 33% (3H:1V) on the side slopes. Per Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0543, a gas
venting system is required for the cap. A passive venting system will be specified, which
will consist of a perforated pipe in crushed stone-filled trench – installed just below the
final cap soil barrier layer – with a tentative minimum vent spacing of three vents per
acre. Drawing EC2 shows the gas vent system details.
8.1.3 Alternative Cap Design
Rule 15 NCAC 13B .0543 make a provision for an alternative cap design, to be used in
the event the permeability requirements for the compacted soil barrier layer cannot be met.
Experience indicates that on-site soils may not meet the required field permeability of not
more than 1.0 x 10-5 cm/sec, as supported by the laboratory data for the soils discussed in
Section 4.0. Tentative final closure plans have assumed that on-site soils will be used for
the compacted barrier layer – alternative cap designs may be researched and submitted for
Division approval at a future time. Plans and specifications shall be provided to the Solid
Waste Section for an alternative final cover design, if used, at least 60 days before any
closure or partial closure activities (see Section 8.1.5).
8.1.4 Division Notifications
The Operator shall notify the Division prior to beginning closure of any final closure
activities. The Operator shall place documentation in the Operating Record pertaining to
the closure, including the CQA requirements and location and date of cover placement.
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 83
8.1.5 Required Closure Schedule
The Operator shall close the landfill in increments as various areas are brought to final
grade. The final cap shall be placed on such areas subject to the following:
•No later than 30 days following last receipt of waste;
•No later than 30 days following the date that an area of 10 acres or greater
is within 15 feet of final grades;
•No later than one year following the most recent receipt of waste if there is
remaining capacity.
Final closure activities shall be completed within 180 days following commencement of
the closure, unless the Division grants extensions. Upon completion of closure activities
for each area (or unit) the Owner shall notify the Division in writing with a certification
by the Engineer that the closure has been completed in accordance with the approved
closure plan and that said documentation has been placed in the operating record.
8.1.6 Recordation
The Owner shall record on the title deed to the subject property that a CDLF has been
operated on the property and file said documentation with the Register of Deeds. Said
recordation shall include a notation that the future use of the property is restricted under
the provision of the approved closure plan.
8.2 Closure Plan
The following is a tentative closure plan for Phases 1 through 4 of the CDLF, based on the
prescribed operational sequence and anticipated conditions at the time of closure.
8.2.1 Final Cap Installation
8.2.1.1 Final Elevations – Final elevation of the landfill shall not exceed those depicted
on Drawing E6 when it is closed, subject to approval of this closure plan. Drawing E5
shows the Phase 3 intermediate cover contours. The elevations shown include the final
cover. A periodic topographic survey shall be performed to verify elevations.
8.2.1.2 Final Slope Ratios – Side slope ratios shall not exceed 3H:1V and upper surfaces
shall have a 5 to 10 percent slope. The cover shall be graded to promote positive drainage.
Topographic surveys shall be performed to verify slope ratios.
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 84
8.2.1.3 Final Cover Section – The terms “final cap” and “final cover” both apply. The
final cover will subscribe to the minimum regulatory requirement for C&D landfills:
•An 18-inch thick compacted soil barrier layer (CSB), i.e., the “infiltration
layer,” with a hydraulic conductivity not exceeding 1 x 10-5 cm/sec,
overlain by
•An 18-inch thick “topsoil” or vegetated surface layer (VSL),
i.e., the “erosion layer.”
8.2.1.4 Final Cover Installation – All soils shall be graded to provide positive drainage
away from the landfill area and compacted to meet applicable permeability requirements
(see Section 4.0). Suitable materials for final cover soil shall meet the requirements
defined above. Care shall be taken to exclude rocks and debris that would hinder
compaction efforts. The surface will then be seeded in order to establish vegetation.
Test Pad – Whereas the lab data indicate that the required permeability is
attainable, the ability to compact the materials in the field to achieve the required
strength and permeability values shall be verified with a field trial involving a test
pad, to be sampled with drive tubes and laboratory density and/or permeability
testing, prior to full-scale construction. The materials, equipment, and testing
procedures should be representative of the anticipated actual final cover
construction. The test pad may be strategically located such that the test pad may
be incorporated into the final cover.
Compacted Barrier – Materials shall be blended to a uniform consistency and
placed in three loose lifts no thicker than 9 inches and compacted by tamping,
rolling, or other suitable method to a thickness of 6 inches – the targeted minimum
thickness of the soil barrier is 18 inches. The cover shall be constructed in
sufficiently small areas that can be completed in a single day (to avoid desiccation,
erosion, or other damage), but large enough to allow ample time for testing without
hindering production. The Contractor shall take care not to over-roll the cover such
that the underlying waste materials would pump or rut, causing the overlying soil
layers to crack – adequate subgrade compaction within the upper 36 inches of waste
materials and/or the intermediate cover soil underlying the final cover is critical.
All final cover soils shall be thoroughly compacted through the full depth to achieve
the required maximum permeability required by Division regulations of 1.0 x 10-5
cm/sec, based on site-specific test criteria (see below). Compaction moisture
control is essential for achieving adequate strength and permeability.
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 85
Vegetated Surface Layer – Also known as “vegetation support layer” or simply
“topsoil.” Materials shall be blended and placed in two loose lifts no thicker than
12 inches and lightly compacted by tamping, rolling, or other suitable method – the
targeted minimum layer thickness is 18 inches. A relatively high organic content
is desirable, thus decayed wood mulch, compost or WWTP sludge (with advance
permission from the Division) may be incorporated to provide nutrient value and
enhanced field capacity. These soils are not subject to a permeability requirement
(no testing). Care should be taken to not over-compact the soil such that vegetation
would be hindered. Following placement and inspection of the surface layer, seed
bed preparation, seeding, and mulching should follow immediately. The work
should be scheduled to optimize weather conditions, if possible.
Inspection and Testing – Soils for the barrier layer are subject to the testing
schedule outlined in the Construction Quality Assurance plan (see Section 4.0).
The proposed testing program includes a minimum of one permeability test per lift
per acre and four nuclear density gauge tests per lift per acre, to verify compaction
of the compacted barrier layer. The moisture-density-permeability relationship of
the materials shall be established by the laboratory testing. The Contractor shall
proof roll the intermediate soil cover to assure that these materials will support the
final cover. If necessary, the Engineer will make recommendations for repairs.
8.2.1.5 Final Cover Vegetation – Seedbed preparation, seeding, and mulching shall be
performed in accordance with specifications in the Construction Plans (see Drawing EC5),
unless approved otherwise by the Engineer. In areas to be seeded, fertilizer and lime
typically should be distributed uniformly at a rate of 1,000 pounds per acre for fertilizer
and 2,000 pounds per acre for lime and incorporated into the soil to a depth of at least 3
inches by disking and harrowing. The incorporation of the fertilizer and lime may be a part
of the cover placement operation specified above. Seed distribution by means of a seed
drill or hydro seeder (some are equipped to distribute lime and fertilizer at the same time)
will be acceptable. Please note that the seeding schedule varies by season.
All vegetated surfaces shall be mulched with wheat straw and a bituminous tack. Areas
identified as prone to erosion may be secured with curled-wood excelsior, installed and
pinned in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Certain perimeter
channels will require excelsior or turf-reinforcement mat (TRM), as specified in the
Channel Schedule. Alternative erosion control products may be substituted with the project
engineer’s prior consent. All rolled erosion control materials should be installed according
to the generalized layout and staking plan found in the Construction Plans or the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 86
Irrigation for landfill covers is not a typical procedure, but consideration of temporary
irrigation may be considered if dry weather conditions prevail during or after the planting.
Care should be taken not to over-irrigate to prevent erosion. Collected storm water will be
suitable for irrigation water. Maintenance of the final cover vegetation, described in the
Post-Closure Plan (see below), is critical to the overall performance of the landfill cover
system.
8.2.1.6 Documentation – The Owner shall complete an “as-built” survey to depict final
elevations of each final cover layer (the top of the intermediate cover layer, top of the
compacted soil barrier, and top of the vegetated soil layer) along with construction
narrative to document any problems, amendments or deviations from the plan drawings.
Records of all testing, including maps with test locations, shall be prepared by the third-
party CQA testing firm. All materials pertaining to the closure shall be placed in the
Operational Record for the facility. Whereas the closure will be incremental, special
attention shall be given to keeping the closure records separate from the normal operational
records.
8.2.2 Maximum Area/Volume Subject to Closure
The largest anticipated area that will require final closure at any one time within the life of
the landfill – including all of Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 – is 25.5 acres. Intermediate cover shall
be used on areas that have achieved final elevations until the final cover is installed. The
volume of Phases 1 – 4 is 2,240,000 cubic yards (Section 1.3).
8.2.3 Closure Schedule
Refer to the requirements outlined in Section 8.1.5 (above).
8.2.4 Closure Cost Estimate
The following cost estimate is considered suitable for the Financial Assurance
requirements (see Section 10.0). The Owner intends to build all of Phase 3, which adds
7.6 acres to the previously permitted 17.9-acre footprint, for 25.5 acres permitted. No area
has a certified final cover in place.
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 87
Table 8A.1
ESTIMATED FINAL CLOSURE COSTS FOR PHASES 1 – 4 (2018 dollars) 1, 5
VSL (topsoil)2 – 25.5 ac 61,710 c.y. @ $4.50 / cubic yard $ 277,695
CSB (barrier)2 – 25.5 ac 70,967 c.y. @ $11 / cubic yard $ 780,637
Establish Vegetation 25.5 acres @ $1,965 per acre $ 50,108
Storm Water Piping 3 530 LF @ $35.00 / LF $ 18,550
Erosion Control Stone 3 27 tons @ $40.00 / ton $ 1,080
Cap Gas Vents (3/acre) 77 @ $100 ea. $ 7,700
Testing and Surveying 4 Estimated 20 percent of above $ 227,154
Contingency Estimated 15 percent of above $ 204,439
Total Construction Cost (if contracted out) $ 1,567,363
Notes:
1 Intended to represent likely third-party construction costs (hired contractor, not the Owner/Operator), based on
knowledge of local construction costs for similar projects – these estimates provided to meet NC DEQ financial
assurance requirements; actual costs may be lower for construction by the Owner/Operator; actual final closure
work will be performed incrementally, spreading out the costs over the life of the project.
2 Includes soil work for regulatory requirements of 15A NCAC 13B .0543, i.e., a minimum of 18 inches of
compacted soil barrier (max. permeability of 1 x 10-5 cm/sec) and 18 inches of topsoil (total soil thickness is
36 inches). For the compacted soil barrier, use a shrinkage factor of 15%; costs include surface preparation,
soil procurement and transport costs, soil placement and compaction, machine/equipment costs, fuel costs.
3 Conservative estimates are based on similar project history; includes materials and installation.
4 Includes Construction document and bidding, construction administrative fee, CQA field monitoring and lab
testing, CQA reporting and certification, final survey for as-built drawings, recordation/notation fee.
5 Inflation has been adjusted for using the inflation rates listed on Table 8A.2. For example, the VSL (topsoil)
had a unit rate of $4.00/cy in 2012. In 2018, this unit rate is now $4.50/cy which is calculated by:
$4/cy * (1.018) * (1.015) * (1.014) * (1.010) * (1.013) * (1.018).
The inflation multiplier applies to closure, post-closure, current corrective action, and potential assessment of
corrective action (PACA) per the above example.
Table 8A.2
ANNUAL INFLATION MULTIPLIERS
2011 year - 1.013 multiplier
2012 year - 1.021 multiplier
2013 year - 1.018 multiplier
2014 year - 1.015 multiplier
2015 year - 1.014 multiplier
2016 year - 1.010 multiplier
2017 year - 1.013 multiplier
2018 year - 1.018 multiplier
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 88
8.3 Post-Closure Plan
8.3.1 Monitoring and Maintenance
8.3.1.1 Term of Post-Closure Care – The facility shall conduct post-closure care for a
minimum of 30 years after final closure of the landfill, unless justification is provided for
a reduced post-closure care period. The post-closure care period may be extended by the
Division if necessary to protect human health and the environment.
8.3.1.2 Maintenance of Closure Systems – Inspections of the final cover systems and
sediment and erosion control (S&EC) measures shall be conducted quarterly. Maintenance
will be provided during post-closure care as needed to protect the integrity and
effectiveness of the final cover. The cover will be repaired as necessary to correct the
effects of settlement, subsidence, erosion, or other events. Refer to the Post Closure
Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule (below).
8.3.1.3 Landfill Gas Monitoring – Quarterly landfill gas (LFG) monitoring will be
conducted during the operational period and for at least 30 years following closure. Post
closure monitoring will be a continuation of the operational monitoring program (see
Section 9.4), subject to amendment as might be required by the Solid Waste Section (SWS)
resulting from rule changes or conditions indicated by the data. The primary concern is
the potential for migration of explosive gas (chiefly methane), although the potential is
relatively low for this facility.
The regulations require that LFG levels remain below 100 percent of the lower Explosive
Level (LEL) – approximately 5 percent methane by volume in air or soil gas – at the facility
boundary and below 25 percent of the LEL within on-site structures. The regulation also
requires that hydrogen sulfide concentrations are maintained below the chronic 24-hour
acceptable ambient level of 0.12 mg/m3 based on nasal toxicity in animal studies
(Recommendations for Twenty North Carolina Toxic Air Pollutants 2015). A
monitoring plan prepared in accordance with the current SWS guidance document can be
found in Appendix 6. The plan includes monitoring requirements and procedures, as well
as contingency activities to be implemented if regulatory thresholds are exceeded.
Locations for the initial detection monitoring of methane were based on site conditions
(physical barriers to gas migration, i.e. surface streams), the presence of man-made
conduits for potential gas migration (i.e., pipelines), and experience with numerous gas
monitoring and remediation programs at other facilities. The bar-hole punch tests are
intended to provide early indication of gas migration outside the waste unit boundary,
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 89
accomplished by monitoring the backfill zones of the pipelines and other locations,
including the up-gradient soils where the porous saprolite and groundwater are deep. The
original LFG monitoring locations are shown on Drawing M-1.
If the data so warrant, future consideration will be given to permanent gas sampling
probes, using the bar hole punch data as a guide for selecting the probe locations.
8.3.1.4 Ground Water Monitoring – Groundwater monitoring will be conducted under
the current version of the approved Sampling and Analysis Plan (see Appendix 5). This
plan will be reviewed periodically and may change in the future. Approximately one year
prior to the landfill reaching permitted capacity, the facility will submit post-closure
monitoring and maintenance schedules, specific to the ground water monitoring.
Procedures, methods, and frequencies will be included in this plan. This future plan, and
all subsequent amendments, will be incorporated by reference to this document.
8.3.1.5 Record Keeping – During the post closure period, maintenance and inspection
records, i.e., a Post Closure Record, shall be kept as a continuation of the Operating
Record that was kept during the operational period. The Post Closure Record shall include
future inspection and engineering reports, as well as documentation of all routine and non-
routine maintenance and/or amendments. The Post Closure Record shall include the
ground water and gas monitoring records collected for the facility.
8.3.1.6 Certification of Completion – At the end of the post-closure care period the
facility manager shall contact the Division to schedule an inspection. The facility manager
shall make the Post Closure Record available for inspection. A certification that the post-
closure plan has been completed, signed by a North Carolina registered professional
engineer, shall be placed in the operating/post closure record. C&D Landfill, Inc. shall
maintain these records indefinitely.
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 90
Table 8B
POST-CLOSURE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
Activity Frequency
Yrs. 1 - 5
Frequency
Yrs. 6-15
Frequency
Yrs. 16-30
General - Inspect access gates, locks, fences, signs,
site security
Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
Maintain access roads, monitoring well access As needed As needed As needed
Final Cover Systems/Stability - Inspect cap and
slope cover for erosion, sloughing, bare spots in
vegetation, make corrections as needed (1)
Quarterly Semi-
Annually
Annually
Storm Water/Erosion Control Systems - Inspect
drainage swales and sediment basin for erosion,
excess sedimentation (1)
Quarterly Semi-
Annually
Annually
Mow cover vegetation and remove thatch Semi-Annually Annually None (2)
Inspect vegetation cover and remove trees Annually Annually Annually
Landfill Gas Monitoring Quarterly (3) Quarterly (3) Quarterly (3)
Ground Water Monitoring System - Check well
head security, visibility
Semi-Annually Semi-
Annually
Semi-
Annually
Ground Water Monitoring (4) Semi-Annually Semi-
Annually
Semi-
Annually
Notes:
1. Inspect after every major storm event, i.e., 25-year 24-hour design storm
2. Dependent on vegetation type, periodic mowing may be required
3. The Solid Waste Section may be petitioned for discontinuation of gas monitoring if no detections occur in gas
sampling locations or on-site buildings
4. See current Ground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan
8.0 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0543)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 91
8.3.2 Responsible Party Contact
Mr. R.E. ‘Gene’ Petty, Sr. – Owner
Mr. Ronnie E. Petty, III – Operator
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406 Tel. [phone]
8.3.3 Planned Uses of Property
Currently, there is no planned use for the landfill area following closure. The closed facility
will be seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Any post-closure uses of the property
considered in the future will not disturb the integrity of the final cover or the function of
the monitoring systems unless necessary (and to be accompanied by repairs or upgrades).
Future uses shall not increase the potential threat to human health and the environment.
8.3.4 Post-Closure Cost Estimate
The following cost estimate is considered representative of post-closure care costs for the
Financial Assurance (see Section 10.0). This calculation includes all of Phase 1, 2, 3 and
4, totaling 25.5 acres.
Table 8C
ESTIMATED POST-CLOSURE COSTS FOR PHASES 1 – 4 (2018 dollars)
Annual Events Units Unit
Cost
Cost/
Event Annual Costs
Reseeding/mulching and erosion repair
(Assume 5% of 25.5 ac., once per year)
1.28 ac. $1,600 $2,048.00 $2,048.00
Mow final cap (twice per year) 25.5 ac. $25 $637.50 $1,275.00
Ground Water (semi-annual, 6 wells) * 6 ea. $400 $2400.00 $4,800.00
Surface Water (semi-annual, 4 locations) * 4 ea. $350 $1400.00 $2,800.00
Water quality analysis and reporting 2 ea. $2250 $4500.00 $4,500.00
Landfill Gas Monitoring (quarterly)** 1 ea. $840 $840.00 $3,360.00
Engineering inspection (annual basis) 1 ea. $1,500 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Maintain storm water conveyances 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Maintain access roads, gates, buildings 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
*Appendix I Detection Monitoring (Section 9.0)Total Estimated Annual Cost $22,283.00
**Monitor 12 permanent wells, 8 hr @ $80 = $640 + $200 equipment rental = $840 per quarter
30 years x $22,283 = $668,490 (See Section 10)
9.0 FACILITY MONITORING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0544)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 92
9.1 Summary of Regulatory Requirements
Detection phase monitoring for ground water and surface water is required of all C&D
landfills. Typical monitoring programs include one or more up gradient background wells
and several down-gradient (or cross gradient) compliance wells, along with several
strategically placed surface water sampling locations (with up gradient and down gradient
coverage). Well placement is based on the site’s hydraulic and topographic characteristics.
Compliance wells are located at a regulatory “review boundary” which are approximately
half the distance to the “compliance boundary,” established 50 feet inside the facility
boundary or approximately 150 feet from the waste boundary at a C&D landfill.
Detection phase monitoring for all landfills includes semi-annual sampling and analysis
for ensuring compliance with North Carolina ground water standards, i.e., 15A NCAC 2L
.0300 (the “2L rules”). The detection phase sampling list includes organic constituents on
the Appendix 1 list2 (i.e., volatiles and semi-volatiles that are analyzed by US-EPA Method
8260 and the eight RCRA metals), key indicator parameters (measured in the field), and
several additional constituents (mercury, manganese, sulfate, iron, alkalinity, and total
dissolved solids). Assuming no detection of ground water constituents that exceed a 2L
standard, the term of detection phase monitoring runs for the operational life of the facility
plus the post-closure period (minimum of 30 years beyond closure). Should one or more
detected constituents exceed a 2L standard, the facility must undergo an assessment
monitoring program to determine the source, extent, and rate of contaminant migration,
plus an evaluation of potential human receptors and/or other environmental impacts.
The Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan (discussed below, see Appendix 5), is
the definitive document governing detection and assessment monitoring programs, with
respect to sampling procedures and strategic placement of monitoring wells. This narrative
describes the monitoring program from a regulatory compliance standpoint.
9.2 Ground Water Monitoring
The following discusses the rationale behind planned amendments to the detection phase
monitoring program for the C&D landfill, reflected in the Groundwater Sampling and
Analysis Plan (Appendix 5). As of this writing, recent regulatory emphasis has been
placed on metals concentrations at CDLF’s, which has required this facility to enter an
assessment program. A description of the assessment within the SAP (Appendix 5) is
beyond the scope of this report, except to acknowledge the assessment is in progress.
2 40 CFR Part 258
9.0 FACILITY MONITORING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0544)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 93
9.2.1 Monitoring System Requirements
The monitoring system must provide effective monitoring of the site, focusing on the
“uppermost aquifer.” Site studies have indicated a radial ground water flow pattern toward
the west, southwest, and northwest, reflecting surface topography along a pronounced
ridge, surrounded on three sides by surface streams. The predominant groundwater flow
direction is westward toward Hickory Creek. A two-aquifer system characterized as
medium dense to very dense sandy saprolite (Unit 1) transitions with depth to bedrock
(Unit 2). The transition zone is variably thick and typically is very dense, called “partially
weathered rock” in local engineering parlance. Upper reaches of the transition zone are
porous; deeper reaches exhibit discreet fractures and partial confinement, where water
levels in sealed piezometers are typically observed higher than the actual water bearing
zone. The density varies both vertically and laterally, with isolated rock-like zones and
softer layers throughout. The transition zone has been identified as the primary water
bearing zone and serves as the uppermost aquifer due to its nearly ubiquitous presence.
Wells screened within the lower portion of Unit 1 (in the transition zone) have a high
probability of intersecting ground water flow zones for effective monitoring of the facility.
However, many of the original piezometers completed just above “auger refusal” were dry
or did not produce sufficient yield for adequate purging and sampling. Advancing the
borings below “auger refusal” with rotary coring techniques typically encountered low
RQD values (indicative of a high degree of weathering) within the upper 5 feet of the cores.
Thus, it can be concluded the transition zone (the “uppermost” aquifer) extends below
auger refusal, and well screens may need to be constructed across the “auger refusal”
imaginary boundary to consistently produce enough water for sampling. This places the
well screens typically beneath the static water levels. Otherwise, the wells are prone to
high turbidity and low yield. This characteristic is prevalent in the higher elevations of the
site, where rock was encountered at typically shallower depths. Within the lower
elevations, the aquifer exhibits more conventional, unconfined porous flow behavior.
The site studies indicate the streams that surround the site serve as the discharge points for
a relatively confined, closed-loop aquifer system that is essentially defined by the streams.
Unit 1 and the transition zone exhibit higher porosity than Unit 2, and with on-site
discharge features, the movement of groundwater is limited to the relatively shallow depths
of the saprolite. The radial flow pattern and distinct topographic features – reflective of
regional jointing – makes the selection of monitoring well sites and screen depths relatively
straightforward. With the streams as on-site discharge points, the ground water flow
regime is well defined, thus the monitoring system can be effective with fewer wells.
Drawing M1 depicts well and stream locations appropriate for monitoring Phases 1 – 4.
9.0 FACILITY MONITORING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0544)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 94
9.2.2 Background Water Quality
Low concentrations of metals have been detected at the background well and in baseline
sampling of the compliance wells. No concentrations of inorganic constituents that affect
the ability to monitor the site were detected.
9.2.3 Point of Compliance Water Quality
The 15A NCAC 2L ground water standards are applicable for the compliance boundary,
tempered with background water quality data. For constituents that do not have
promulgated 2L standards, the Division will consider alternative limits for compliance.
9.2.4 Sampling and Analysis Procedures
Industry accepted protocols (consistent with Division guidelines)3 are discussed in the
standalone document, Sampling and Analysis Plan presented in Appendix 5.
9.2.5 Detection-phase Monitoring Parameters
The sampling parameters consist of the EPA Appendix I list of organic constituents and
metals, modified by 15A NCAC 13B .0544. The prescribed sampling list includes CDLF-
specific constituents and field parameters required by NC DEQ (see Appendix 5).
9.2.6 Sampling Frequency
The sampling frequency shall be semi-annually.
9.2.7 Water Level Elevations
Water levels shall be measured and recorded by referencing the top-of-casing at each
monitoring well during each sampling event.
9.2.8 Reporting
Data analysis and reporting, consistent with Division requirements, are described in the
Sampling and Analysis Plan (see Appendix 5).
3 NC DENR Division of Waste Management Guidance Document, Ground Water Sampling for
Construction and Demolition, Closed or Industrial Landfills,
http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/enviro_monitoring.asp
9.0 FACILITY MONITORING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0544)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 95
9.2.9 Source Demonstration
In the event of the detection of a ground water constituent that exceeds a 2L standard, an
evaluation may be made in accordance with Division policy to determine the source, e.g.,
sampling error, laboratory contamination, extenuating circumstances (improper repairs to
a well or incidental spill near a well). Typically, such evaluations are accompanied by re-
sampling and, if appropriate, correction of conditions that may have led to the detection.
If such demonstrations cannot be made, the landfill might be considered as the source.
9.2.10 Monitoring Well Design
Wells shall be (and currently are) designed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C.
9.2.11 Monitoring Well Layout
The layout takes into consideration the topographic features, saprolite thickness,
groundwater depths, regional flow conditions and access within the generally hilly terrain.
9.2.12 Alternative Monitoring Systems
None are proposed at present.
9.2.13 Assessment Monitoring
Requirements of assessment monitoring, if required, are outlined in Rule 15A NCAC 13B
.0545. Recent attention to metals concentrations by the regulatory community has forced
this Facility into an assessment monitoring program. This requirement is triggered in part
by the lowering of detection limits and standards for certain constituents and statistical
analysis of previously acquired data sets. This short-term evaluation involves a more
extensive list of parameters based on the Appendix II list with a handful of CDLF-specific
constituents required by NC DEQ. Pending the results of the next few sampling events, it
is likely the Facility will return to detection monitoring.
In response to the requirement, a facility-specific monitoring plan has been prepared and
approved by the Division. Changes to the sampling and analysis protocols to accommodate
the requirements of the assessment are covered in Appendix 5, some of which will become
permanent. For instance, based on early data evaluation the influence of turbidity in the
groundwater samples has been recognized. Thus a permanent change to the monitoring
program for this Facility will be implementation of “low-flow” sampling techniques.
9.0 FACILITY MONITORING PLAN
(15A NCAC 13B .0544)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 96
9.3 Surface Water Monitoring
Surface water monitoring focuses on the streams shown to be shallow ground water
discharge features to the north, west, and south of the CDLF footprint. Upstream
monitoring on these water bodies, which converge at the site margins, and monitoring of
the larger stream at the point it leaves the property provides effective monitoring of the
Facility. The surface water sampling locations are shown on Drawing M1. North Carolina
2L ground water standards apply. A separate storm water sampling program focuses on
turbidity and sediment, with sampling conducted under the purview of the NC DEQ
Division of Water Quality and in accordance with a NPDES General Storm Water Permit.
9.4 Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control Plan
A landfill gas (LFG) monitoring plan was approved with the original permitting and has
been conducted since the facility opened, with no known detects within compliance zones.
The Solid Waste Section published the document, “Landfill Gas Monitoring Guidance,” in
November 2010. A standalone LFG monitoring plan prepared in accordance with the
guidance document is presented in Appendix 6. One significant change upcoming will be
the installation of permanent LFG monitoring wells, replacing the soil-gas probes.
9.5 Adherence to Waste Acceptance Criteria
Monitoring of the waste intake is addressed in the Operations Plan (see Section 5.0). The
plan calls for routine waste screening and record keeping with respect to waste types,
sources, and haulers. Maintaining strict adherence to the waste acceptance criteria is the
sure way to maintain compliance with ground water quality criteria.
9.6 Plan Preparation and Certification
This monitoring plan for the C&D Landfill, Inc., disposal units has been prepared by, or
under the responsible charge of, one or more North Carolina Licensed Geologists or
Professional Engineers. The individual signature and seal below attests to compliance with
this rule requirement.
Signed _____________________
Printed G. David Garrett
Date January 15, 2019
Not valid unless this document bears the seal of the above-named licensed professional.
10.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
(15A NCAC 13B .0546)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 97
15A NCAC 13B .0546 requires that Owners/Operators demonstrate financial assurance
for closure and post-closure activities. Typically, for local government-owned facilities,
said demonstration is based on a local government test. For private facilities, the posting
of a performance bond or insurance policy is typically acceptable to the Division.
Cost estimates for closure and post-closure of CDLF Phases 1 – 4 are presented in Sections
8.2.4 and 8.3.4, respectively. The following is a detailed analysis of the closure and post
closure costs, projected over the anticipated life of the landfill and 30 years of post-closure
care. The Financial Assurance obligation should be recalculated for future years to account
for inflation using annual multipliers furnished by NC DEQ.
The bond requirement is for the whole landfill that has a Permit to Operate – the liabilities
both increase and decrease with time as phases are opened and others are closed. Thus, the
amount of the post-closure instrument should be adjusted on an annual basis, consistent
with Division policy. Acceptable financial assurance instruments include performance
bonds, insurance policies, cash deposits and irrevocable letters of credit.
Table 10
SUMMARY OF CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COSTS (2018 dollars)
1. Final Closure Construction (see Table 8A)$1,567,363
2. Projected Post-Closure Costs (see Table 8C) *$ 668,490
TOTAL CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE COST $2,235,853
3. PACA**$1,128,666
TOTAL REQUIRED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE $3,364,519
Per Division rules, Owners/Operators must furnish an acceptable financial assurance
instrument (e.g., performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, insurance policy, other
fiduciary instrument) within 30 days of notification of approval.
*Assumes 30 years
** Potential Assessment and Corrective Action (PACA), a separate bond required by statutory changes ca.
2008, revised ca. 2010. The minimum bond amount is $1M, subject to annual inflation multiplier (see Table
8A.2).
11.0 CERTIFICATION
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Processing Facility Phase 3 PTC 1/15/2019
Permit 4117-CDLF-2008 Facility Plan Update Page 98
This engineering plan for the A-1 Sandrock, Inc., C&D Landfill Phases 1 – 4 disposal unit
has been prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, a North Carolina Licensed
Professional Engineer to meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 13B .0539. The individual
signature and seal below attests to compliance with this rule requirement.
Signed _____________________
Printed G. David Garrett
Date January 15, 2019
Not valid unless this document bears the seal of the above-named licensed professional.
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
2-4-2019
APPENDIX 1
Property Information
Guilford County Property Record Card
Parcel ID:12-03-0185-0-0739-W -007 Data Upload Date:2/9/0010
Property Address:2390 CONCORD CHURCH RD Inquiry Date:2/13/2009
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to keepinformation provided over the internet accurate andup-to-date, Guilford County does not certify theauthenticity or accuracy of such information. Nowarranties, express or implied, are provided for therecords and/or mapping data herein, or for their use orinterpretation by the User.
Owner
Name:PETTY RONALD EUGENE SR & BETTY B
Address:3011 COUNTY CLARE ROAD
City State Zip:GREENSBORO, NC 27409
Property Information
Description:71.16AC NEWMAN PB149-93 Parcel Size:71.16
Acres
Address:2390 CONCORD CHURCH RD Area as
Mapped:57.49
Use:Office 3 Floors or Less Tax District:64
Zoning:
Heavy Industrial (HI), Residential Single-Family 1 unit per acre (RS-40),
Heavy Industrial, Conditional Use, Special Use Permit (CU-HI-SP),
Agricultural (AG)

Sales History
Book-Page Sale Date Price Type Qualification Improved
4378-198 1/15/1996 $209,500 Sales Questionnaire Qualified No
4026-1803 11/15/1992 $3,500 Warranty Deed Unqualified Yes
Total Appraisal Values
Assessed Building Out Building Land Deferred
$908,500 $54,600 $0 $853,900 $0
Guilford County Property Card http://gcgis.co.guilford.nc.us/guilford_new/propertyCard.aspx?PIN=1203...
1 of 2 2/13/2009 12:06 PM
Appendix 2
Stability, Settlement, and Airspace Calculations
And Supporting Geotechnical Laboratory Data
Table 2Sample Types: S = Split spoon sampleGeotechnical Laboratory DataB = Bulk sampleU = Undisturbed (Shelby tube)Grain Size Distributution and Soil ClassificationBoring Sample Sample % >3" % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay Liquid Plasticity Plasticity USCS Natural % Passing HydrogeologicNumber Number Depth, ft.>75 mm 75 mm> 4.5 mm> 0.075 mm> 0.005 mm>Limit Limit Index Class. Moisture#200 SieveDescription****> #4 #4 - #200 #200 > %B-13 B1 0.0 - 50.0 0 3.0 68.0 21.0 8.0 NP NP NP SM-ML 5.1 29.0 Gray-Brown Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-21 B2 0.0 -20.0 0 0.0 87.5 6.5 6.0 23 18 5 SM 12.5 Tan Silty Coarse to Fine SANDB-22 B3 0.0 - 20.0 0 0.0 75.7 19.3 5.0 NP NP NP SM 2.3 24.3 Gray Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-11 S1 3.5 - 5.0 0 0.0 10.1 58.9 31.0 49 28 21 CL-ML 38.3 89.9 Orange Silty CLAYB-11 S3 13.5 - 15.0 0 6.5 68.0 24.0 8.0 NP NP NP SM 10.7 32.0 Gray-Tan Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-12 S2 8.5 - 10.0 0 0.0 86.4 9.6 4.0 NP NP NP SM 4.5 13.6 White-Brown Silty F - C SANDB-19 S3 13.5 - 15.0 0 0.0 83.4 16.6 0.0 NP NP NP SM 16.6 Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-21 S1 3.5 - 5.0 0 0.0 39.5 43.5 17.0 33 24 9 SM-ML 60.5 Tan Fine Sandy SILTB-21 S2 8.5 - 10.0 0 0.0 40.7 41.3 18.0 41 28 13 SM-ML 59.3 Fine Sandy SILTB-21 S3 13.5 - 15.0 0 0.0 55.8 38.2 6.0 28 23 5 SM-ML 44.2 Silty Fine SANDB-21 S4 18.5 - 20.0 0 0.0 54.0 38.0 8.0 NP NP NP SM-ML 46.0 Silty Fine SANDNotes to Above:Moisture Contents are Dry Unit Weight BasedMoisture data for bulk samples acquired from individual jar samples collected with the bulk sample. Samples were oven-dried. These data are considered representative of in-situ moisture conditions for earth work considerations. Samples tested by Geotechnologies. Inc., Raleigh, NCRutherford County Site Suitability Investigation2/18/2009

SETTLEMENT CALCULATION A-1 Sandrock CDLFPage 1Calculations based on Hough's method for sand (corrected SPT values) and consolidation theory for clays (using lab data)*These preliminary calculations assume no soil surcharge (preloading) to establish baseline settlement for planning purposesAssume soil surcharge height = 0 feet x soil unit weight = 100 pcf = 0 psf Soil surcharge pressure increase = 0 psfMax. final waste height = 110 feet x unit weight = 37 pcf = 4070 psfEst'd base soil thickness = 0 feet x soil unit weight = 100 pcf = 0 psf Final vertical pressure increase = 4070 psf ALL STRESSES USED IN THE CALCULATIONS ARE EFFECTIVE STRESSHypothetical "worst case" soil profile Grd. Elev. 750 Water table depth (ft)** = 15initial vertical stress condition surcharge preload, if any final vertical stressLayer Depth Base Unit Wt. Po u Po' Thickness Soil N Zave I Average Past Surcharge Pp=Pi+Ps del-P Pf(ft) Elev. (pcf) - wet (psf) (psf) (psf) (ft) Type (bpf) (ft) Po' Pc*** Pi Ps000 01 10 740 120 1200.00 -312.00 1512.00 10 SM 35 5 1 756 376 756 0 756 4070 48262 20 730 135 2550.00 312.00 2238.00 10 SM 100 15 0.97 1875 1700 1875 0 1875 3948 58233 30 720 140 3950.00 936.00 3014.00 10 SM 100 25 0.9 2626 1700 2626 0 2626 3663 62894 40 710 135 5300.00 1560.00 3740.00 10 SM 100 35 0.78 3377 1700 3377 0 3377 3175 65525 50 700 135 6650.00 2184.00 4466.00 10 SM 100 45 0.63 4103 1700 4103 0 4103 2564 6667*Reference: Cheney, R.S., and R.G. Hassie, Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual, US Federal Highway Administration, November 1982
SETTLEMENT CALCULATION A-1 Sandrock CDLFPage 2RR = Recompression ratio (staged loading/unloading)CR = Consolidation ratio (virgin compression curve)Use consolidation data, considering maximum past pressure for peat & clay layers: Use corrected spf, without past pressure, for sands:for log Pc/Po < Pc: for log Pf/Pc > Pc: add the two:del-H = Ho * RR * log(Pc/Po) del-H = Ho * CR * log(Pf/Pc) del-H = Ho * 1/C' * log(pf/Po)Ref. Consol Data RR CR log Pp/Po del-H log Pf/Pp del-H del-H clay N'/N N' C' log Po/Pf del-H sand TOTALCr/1+eo Cc/1+eo (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) SETTLEMENT2 70 85 0.81 0.09 0.091.8 100 85 0.60 0.07 0.071.7 100 85 0.38 0.04 0.041.4 100 25 0.29 0.12 0.121.3 100 55 0.21 0.04 0.04Consolidation Settlement - Clay Layers 0.00 Elastic Settlement - Sand Layers 0.36 0.36
Calculation of Veneer Stability for Static and Seismic Conditions
Saturated and Unsaturated Cases
Project:A-1 Sandrock Inc. C&D Landfill Pha3H:1V slope ratio
Reference:Geotechnical and Stability Analyses for Ohio Waste Containment Facilitie
Ohio EPA Geotechnical Resource Group, Guidance Document 660, September 2004
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/document/guidance/gd_660.pdf
The described method calculates the factor of safety against final cover sliding with varying depths of water (head) above barrier layer,
e.g., an upper vegetation-support layer above a synthetic membrane or compacted soil; precipitation depth can be specified (design storm),
or for a given desired factor of safety, the minimum required friction angle can be determined (after Matasovic, 1991)
For saturated conditions, assume a minimum 10-year, 60-min design storm impinges on surface soils at field capacity
The following assumes a 3H:1V slope ratio, with 18 inches of vegetative cover soil above a compacted soil barrier (10^-5 cm/sec)
A mimimal amount of cohesion may be assumed for a soil-to-soil interface - if a flexible membrane barrier is to be used, no cohesion is
assumed and a synthetic drain layer or free draining sand must be used!
The assumed design condition places a bench or diversion berm every 25 to 30 vertical feet, thus the slope length of interest is 75 feet
The basic equation for the safety factor is:
FS = {c/Gam-c*Zc*Cos^2Beta + tanPhi[1 - Gam-w(Zc - Dw)/(Gam-c*Zc)] - Ng*tanBeta*tanPhi } / Ng+tanBeta Eq. 9.1
where: Fs = 1.5 = Factor of Safety (for static case use 1.5, for seismic use 1.1)
Ng = 0 = peak horizontal acceleration, %g (specific to region)
Gam-c = 120 = unit weight of cover material, pcf (assume saturated)
Gam-w = 62.4 = unit weight of water, pcf
c = 0 = cohesion along failure surface, psf
Phi = = internal angle of friction, degrees
Beta = 18.43 = angle of slope (degrees), for 3H:1V slopes = 18.43
Zc = 1.5 = depth of cover soil, ft.
Dw = = depth of water (assume parallel to slope), see Eq. 9.2 below
Turned around, the equation becomes:
Phi = tan^-1 {Fs*(Ng + tanBeta) - (c/Gam-c*Zc*Cos^2Beta) / [1 - (Gam-w*(Zc-Dw)/(Gam-c*Zc)] - Ng*tanBeta]} = 30.50 degrees
See Summary
The calculation of head follows:
Havg = P(1-RC)*(L*cosBeta) / Kd*sinBeta = 13.3 cm = 0.44 feet Eq. 9.2
where: Havg = average head on failure surface
P = precipitation, in/hr = 2.75 = 1.94E-03 (cm/sec)
L = slope length, ft = 75 = 2286 (cm)
RC = runoff coefficient = 0
Kd = permeability of drainage layer = 1 (cm/sec)
thus, Dw = Zc - Havg = 1.06 feet Eq. 9.4
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED DESIGN PARAMETERS
THE FOLLOWING ANALYSES ASSUME NO INTERFACE COHESION
For unsaturated, static conditions, required minimum friction angle for a safety factor of 1.5 is 26.56 degrees
For unsaturated, seismic conditions, required min. friction angle for a safety factor of 1.1 is 21.23 degrees
For saturated, static conditions, required minimum friction angle for a safety factor of 1.5 is 30.50 degrees CRITICAL
For saturated, seismic conditions, required minimum friction angle for a safety factor of 1.1 is 24.60 degrees
INTERFACE TESING SHALL BE PERFORMED AS A CQA REQUIREMENT FOR ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS
David Garrett, PG, PE 2/18/2009
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 10 GDG 9-3-2018 Page 1
PHASE 3 Airspace - Base Grade to Phase 3a Interim 1 Fill
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum.Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac.Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
790 72,435.8 1.663 1,160,899.0 1,160,899.0 42,996.3
800 159,744.0 3.667 1,617,545.0 2,778,444.0 102,905.3
810 163,765.0 3.760 1,530,185.0 4,308,629.0 159,578.9
820 142,272.0 3.266 1,048,649.0 5,357,278.0 198,417.7
830 67,457.8 1.549 337,289.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9 Interim 1 Volume
840 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
850 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
860 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
870 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
880 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
890 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
900 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
910 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
920 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
930 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
940 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
950 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
960 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
970 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
980 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
990 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1000 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1010 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1020 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1030 0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1040 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1050 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1060 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1070 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1080 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1090 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1100 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1110 0.0 0.000 0.0 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
1120 0.0 0.000 5,694,567.0 210,909.9
Amec Foster Wheeler 10-2-2018 A1 Sandrock Phase Volume Calculations
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 10 GDG 9-3-2018 Page 2
PHASE 3 Airspace - Base Grade to Phase 3b Interim 2 Fill
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum.Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac.Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
760 0.0 0.000 157,723.0 157,723.0 5,841.6
770 31,544.6 0.724 482,818.5 640,541.5 23,723.8
780 65,019.1 1.493 1,003,441.5 1,643,983.0 60,888.3
790 135,669.2 3.115 1,571,666.0 3,215,649.0 119,098.1
800 178,664.0 4.102 893,320.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0 Interim 2 Volume
810 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
820 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
830 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
840 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
850 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
860 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
870 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
880 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
890 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
900 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
910 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
920 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
930 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
940 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
950 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
960 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
970 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
980 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
990 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1000 0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1010 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1020 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1030 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1040 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1050 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1060 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1070 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1080 0.0 0.000 0.0 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
1090 0.0 0.000 4,108,969.0 152,184.0
Amec Foster Wheeler 10-2-2018 A1 Sandrock Phase Volume Calculations
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Contour interval (feet) = 10 GDG 9-3-2018 Page 3
PHASE 3 Airspace - Interim 1 and 2 to Interim 3 Fill
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum.Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac.Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
800 178,664.0 4.102 1,792,544.0 1,792,544.0 66,390.5
810 179,844.8 4.129 1,875,760.5 3,668,304.5 135,863.1
820 195,307.3 4.484 2,159,962.0 5,828,266.5 215,861.7
830 236,685.1 5.434 1,439,115.0 7,267,381.5 269,162.3
840 51,137.9 1.174 255,689.5 7,523,071.0 278,632.3 Interim 3 Volume
850 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
860 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
870 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
880 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
890 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
900 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
910 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
920 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
930 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
940 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
950 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
960 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
970 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
980 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
990 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1000 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1010 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1020 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1030 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1040 0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1050 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1060 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1070 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1080 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1090 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1100 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1110 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1120 0.0 0.000 0.0 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
1130 0.0 0.000 7,523,071.0 278,632.3
TOTAL INTERIM 1 + 2 + 3 = 641,726.2 TOTAL VOLUME
Amec Foster Wheeler 10-2-2018 A1 Sandrock Phase Volume Calculations
CUT & FILL VOLUMES BY AVERAGE AREA METHOD
BASED ON DEPTH CONTOURS (ISOPACHS)
Before 870 Contour interval (feet) = 2 Page 4
After 870 Contour interval (feet) = 10
PHASE 4 Airspace - Phase 3 Fill to Phase 4 Fill
Cut Contour Contour Increment Accum. Accum.
Depth Area, sf Area, ac. Vol., cf Vol., cf Vol., cy
812 16,266.0 0.373 49,776.0 49,776.0 1,843.6
814 33,510.0 0.769 89,260.0 139,036.0 5,149.5
816 55,750.0 1.280 132,868.0 271,904.0 10,070.5
818 77,118.0 1.770 174,969.0 446,873.0 16,550.9
820 97,851.0 2.246 215,776.0 662,649.0 24,542.6
822 117,925.0 2.707 255,293.0 917,942.0 33,997.9
824 137,368.0 3.154 295,042.0 1,212,984.0 44,925.3
826 157,674.0 3.620 335,368.0 1,548,352.0 57,346.4
828 177,694.0 4.079 375,335.0 1,923,687.0 71,247.7
830 197,641.0 4.537 415,118.0 2,338,805.0 86,622.4
832 217,477.0 4.993 456,483.0 2,795,288.0 103,529.2
834 239,006.0 5.487 497,385.0 3,292,673.0 121,950.9
836 258,379.0 5.932 533,717.0 3,826,390.0 141,718.1
838 275,338.0 6.321 546,350.0 4,372,740.0 161,953.3
840 271,012.0 6.222 555,178.0 4,927,918.0 182,515.5
842 284,166.0 6.524 582,583.0 5,510,501.0 204,092.6
844 298,417.0 6.851 603,212.0 6,113,713.0 226,433.8
846 304,795.0 6.997 621,040.0 6,734,753.0 249,435.3
848 316,245.0 7.260 634,045.0 7,368,798.0 272,918.4
850 317,800.0 7.296 623,445.0 7,992,243.0 296,009.0
852 305,645.0 7.017 597,796.0 8,590,039.0 318,149.6
854 292,151.0 6.707 571,085.0 9,161,124.0 339,300.9
856 278,934.0 6.403 544,927.0 9,706,051.0 359,483.4
858 265,993.0 6.106 519,320.0 10,225,371.0 378,717.4
860 253327 5.816 494,264.0 10,719,635.0 397,023.5
862 240,937.0 5.531 469,760.0 11,189,395.0 414,422.0
864 228,823.0 5.253 445,806.0 11,635,201.0 430,933.4
866 216,983.0 4.981 422,410.0 12,057,611.0 446,578.2
868 205,427.0 4.716 381,497.0 12,439,108.0 460,707.7
870 176,070.0 4.042 288,285.0 12,727,393.0 471,384.9
880 112,215.0 2.576 872,130.0 13,599,523.0 503,686.0
890 62,211.0 1.428 438,835.0 14,038,358.0 519,939.2
900 25,556.0 0.587 29,709.0 14,068,067.0 521,039.5
902 25,556.0 0.587 25,556.0 14,093,623.0 521,986.0
904 4,153.0 0.095 14,068,067.0 521,039.5 TOTAL VOLUME
Amec Foster Wheeler 10-2-2018 A1 Sandrock Phase Volume Calculations
Appendix 3
Sediment & Erosion Control Calculations
Please note, the calculations are excerpted from the
2002 Mining Permit application, pertaining to the final cover
drainage (slope drains and perimeter channels).
These calculations were approved ca. 2003 with
Mining Permit #41-22 by the
NC DENR Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section.
Page 1 of 21Design Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter toe drain for east side, below Drainage Area 2Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
29.310.3584%5.46lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
3.580.2216%1.06lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
32.89100%6.52Summation
0.33=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres6.52Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area130Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)750Hydraulic Length, L
feet500=LengthMaximum slope0.060Channel Slope, S
feet250=LengthMinimum slope0.012
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use3=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs17.77=6.52*8.29*0.33Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS18=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 21Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet4Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet500=Length, L0.06=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.025=Manning's n coefficient1.23Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.45Normal Depth =
fps4>fps7.5Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf1.7Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf1.8
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet250=Length, L0.012=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0.025=Manning's n coefficient2.76Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.72Normal Depth =
fps4>fps4.1Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps3>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf0.5Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.6
TRMMinimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope1Channel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.025Manning's coefficient, n
0.06Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS18Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)1.23 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):4 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep1.450.387.162.750.504
Shallow0.970.326.532.080.404
Deep1.250.366.912.470.464
Shallow1.150.356.782.340.444
Shallow√1.200.356.852.410.454
feet0.45Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet4Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>7.5V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)1.7T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)1.8Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Minimum slope1Channel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.025Manning's coefficient, n
0.012Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS18Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)2.76 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):4 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep3.500.579.065.120.804
Shallow2.710.518.434.270.704
Deep3.170.548.814.770.764
Deep3.010.538.684.600.744
Deep√2.860.528.554.440.724
feet0.72Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet4Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>4.1V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.5T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)0.6Tb = Kb * T =
feet300Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 22Design Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter toe drain for south side, below Drainage Area 3Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
29.880.3585%6.18lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
3.220.2215%1.06lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
33.10100%7.24Summation
0.33=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres7.24Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area142Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)550Hydraulic Length, L
feet550=LengthMaximum slope0.024Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use2=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs19.85=7.24*8.29*0.33Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS20=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 22Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet4Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet550=Length, L0.024=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.025=Manning's n coefficient2.17Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.63Normal Depth =
fps4>fps5.4Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf0.9Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf1.0
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet0=Length, L0=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0=Manning's n coefficient0.00Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps0.0Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps3<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.0Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.0
0Minimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope2Channel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.025Manning's coefficient, n
0.024Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS20Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)2.17 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):4 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep2.710.518.434.270.704
Shallow2.030.457.793.480.604
Deep2.430.488.173.950.664
Deep2.290.478.053.790.644
Deep√2.230.467.983.710.634
feet0.63Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet4Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>5.4V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.9T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)1.0Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 23Design Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter toe drain for sothwest side, below Drainage Area 4Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
30.330.3587%6.88lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
2.940.2213%1.06lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
33.26100%7.94Summation
0.33=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres7.94Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area156Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)550Hydraulic Length, L
feet550=LengthMaximum slope0.034Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use2=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs21.88=7.94*8.29*0.33Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS22=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 23Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet4Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet550=Length, L0.034=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.025=Manning's n coefficient2.00Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.59Normal Depth =
fps4>fps6.5Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf1.3Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf1.3
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet0=Length, L0=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0=Manning's n coefficient0.00Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps0.0Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps3<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.0Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.0
0Minimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope3Channel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.025Manning's coefficient, n
0.034Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS22Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)2.00 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):4 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep2.030.457.793.480.604
Shallow1.450.387.162.750.504
Shallow1.790.427.543.180.564
Shallow1.910.437.673.330.584
Shallow√1.970.447.733.400.594
feet0.59Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet4Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>6.5V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)1.3T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)1.3Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 24ADesign Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter toe drain for northeast side, steeper section with less flow areaDescription:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.02lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.02Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres1.02Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area54Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)400Hydraulic Length, L
feet400=LengthMaximum slope0.063Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use2=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs2.96=1.02*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS3=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 24ADesign Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet2Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet8Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet400=Length, L0.063=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.036=Manning's n coefficient0.29Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.3Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps3.4Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf1.2Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf1.2
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet0=Length, L0=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0=Manning's n coefficient0.00Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps0.0Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps3<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.0Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.0
0Minimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope4AChannel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.036Manning's coefficient, n
0.063Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS3Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)0.29 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):2 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep0.320.223.900.870.302
Shallow0.150.163.260.520.202
Shallow0.250.203.640.720.262
Shallow0.280.213.770.800.282
Deep√0.300.223.830.830.292
feet0.3Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet2Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet8Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
OKfps4<3.4V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)1.2T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)1.2Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 24BDesign Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter toe drain for northeast side, below Down-channel 5Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.81lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.81Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres1.81Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area64Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)350Hydraulic Length, L
feet350=LengthMaximum slope0.023Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use1=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs5.25=1.81*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS6=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 24BDesign Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet3Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet9Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet350=Length, L0.023=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.036=Manning's n coefficient0.96Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.45Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps3.1Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf0.6Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.7
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
Protect bend with 12" rip-rap
feet0=Length, L0=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0=Manning's n coefficient0.00Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps0.0Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps3<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.0Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.0
0Minimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope4BChannel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.036Manning's coefficient, n
0.023Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS6Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)0.96 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):3 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep1.150.376.162.250.503
Shallow0.760.305.531.680.403
Deep0.980.345.912.010.463
Shallow0.900.335.781.900.443
Shallow√0.940.335.851.960.453
feet0.45Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet3Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet9Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
OKfps4<3.1V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.6T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)0.7Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 25Design Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter toe drain for north side, below Down-channel 5Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%2.58lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%2.58Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres2.58Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area74Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)600Hydraulic Length, L
feet600=LengthMaximum slope0.020Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)2Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use2=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs7.48=2.58*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS8=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 25Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet4Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet600=Length, L0.02=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.036=Manning's n coefficient1.37Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.49Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps3.0Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf0.6Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.6
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet0=Length, L0=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0=Manning's n coefficient0.00Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps0.0Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps3<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.0Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.0
0Minimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope5Channel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.036Manning's coefficient, n
0.02Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS8Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)1.37 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):4 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep1.450.387.162.750.504
Shallow0.970.326.532.080.404
Shallow1.250.366.912.470.464
Shallow1.350.377.042.610.484
Deep√1.400.387.102.680.494
feet0.49Normal flow for design condition:
feet2Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet4Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet10Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
OKfps4<3.0V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.6T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)0.6Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 26Design Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter toe drain for north side, below Drainage Area 7Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
34.520.3599%12.31lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.300.221%0.17lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
34.82100%12.48Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres12.48Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area146Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)600Hydraulic Length, L
feet600=LengthMaximum slope0.010Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use2=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs36.01=12.48*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS37=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 26Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet8Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet14Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet600=Length, L0.01=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.025=Manning's n coefficient6.21Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.82Normal Depth =
fps4>fps4.3Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf0.5Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.5
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet0=Length, L0=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0=Manning's n coefficient0.00Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps0.0Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps3<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.0Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.0
0Minimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope6Channel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.025Manning's coefficient, n
0.01Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS37Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)6.21 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):8 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep7.620.7013.699.630.908
Shallow6.160.6413.068.320.808
Deep7.010.6813.449.100.868
Deep6.720.6613.318.840.848
Deep√6.440.6513.198.580.828
feet0.82Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet8Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet14Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>4.3V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.5T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)0.5Tb = Kb * T =
feet300Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 27Design Calculations for Channel No.
Conveys combined perimeter flow to Sediment Basin No. 2Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.08lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.08Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres1.08Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)770Hydraulic Length, L
feet170=LengthMaximum slope0.047Channel Slope, S
feet600=LengthMinimum slope0.020
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use5=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs3.13=1.08*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS4=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 27Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet2Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet8Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet170=Length, L0.047=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.03=Manning's n coefficient0.37Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.28Normal Depth =
fps4>fps5.0Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf0.8Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.9
TRMMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet600=Length, L0.02=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0.03=Manning's n coefficient0.57Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.42Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps2.9Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps3>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf0.5Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.6
GrassMinimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slope7Channel No.
TRMAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.030Manning's coefficient, n
0.047Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS4Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)0.37 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):2 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Shallow0.320.223.900.870.302
Shallow0.150.163.260.520.202
Shallow0.250.203.640.720.262
Shallow√0.280.213.770.800.282
Shallow0.210.193.520.650.242
feet0.28Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet2Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet8Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>5.0V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.8T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)0.9Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Minimum slope7Channel No.
GrassAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.030Manning's coefficient, n
0.02Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS4Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)0.57 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):2 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep0.850.345.161.750.502
Shallow0.550.284.531.280.402
Deep0.720.324.911.550.462
Deep0.660.314.781.460.442
Deep√0.610.294.661.370.422
feet0.42Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet2Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet8Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4<2.9V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.5T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)0.6Tb = Kb * T =
feet300Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 2DBS1Design Calculations for Channel No.
Perimeter drain for cap, located at crest of side slopeDescription:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
0.000.350%0lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
22.000.22100%0.64lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
22.00100%0.64Summation
0.22=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres0.64Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area4Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)330Hydraulic Length, L
feet330=LengthMaximum slope0.020Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)1Max. flow depth
6 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use4=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs1.17=0.64*8.29*0.22Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS2=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 2DBS1Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet1Bottom width, B =
feet1Minimum depth =
feet13Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet330=Length, L0.02=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.03=Manning's n coefficient0.28Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.31Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps2.3Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps2.5<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.4Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.4
GrassMaximum slopeLiner material for
feet0=Length, L0=Slope, SMinimum slope section(s):
0.036=Manning's n coefficientERRQ*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.35Normal Depth =
OKfps4<fps1.8Velocity, V =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps3<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
on straight sectionpsf0.0Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf0.0
NAMinimum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slopeDBS1Channel No.
GrassAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.030Manning's coefficient, n
0.02Channel Gradient, S
6Channel Side Slope, m
CFS2Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)0.28 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):1 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Shallow0.270.184.650.840.301
Deep0.310.194.890.930.321
Deep√0.290.194.770.890.311
Shallow0.160.153.920.590.241
Shallow0.140.143.680.510.221
feet0.31Normal flow for design condition:
feet1Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet1Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet1Minimum depth =
feet13Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
OKfps4<2.3V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Below permissible velocity for vegetation
OKfps2.5<
Below permissible velocity for bare soil
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)0.4T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)0.4Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 2Down Channel 1Design Calculations for Channel No.
Conveys Channel #6 to Sediment Basin 1 (north end)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
34.520.3599%12.31lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
1.230.901%0.17Road drainage
35.75100%12.48Summation
0.36=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres12.48Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)146Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)120Hydraulic Length, L
feet120=LengthMaximum slope0.280Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)2Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use0=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs36.97=12.48*8.29*0.36Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS37=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 2Down Channel 1Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet8Bottom width, B =
feet2Minimum depth =
feet20Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet120=Length, L0.28=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.036=Manning's n coefficient1.69Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.39Normal Depth =
fps4>fps10.3Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf6.8Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf7.2
12" Rip-rapMaximum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slopeDown Channel 1Channel No.
12" Rip-rapAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.036Manning's coefficient, n
0.28Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS37Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)1.69 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):8 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep1.830.3510.533.680.408
Shallow1.110.279.902.670.308
Shallow1.520.3210.283.270.368
Shallow1.670.3310.403.470.388
Deep√1.750.3410.473.580.398
feet0.39Normal flow for design condition:
feet2Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet8Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet2Minimum depth =
feet20Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>10.3V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)6.8T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)7.2Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 1 of 2Down Channel 2Design Calculations for Channel No.
Conveys Channels 3, 7, and Down Pipe 1 to Sediment Basin 1Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
32.560.3593%14.14lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
1.530.227%1.06lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
34.09100%15.20Summation
0.34=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Design Conditions:
acres15.20Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area156Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)100Hydraulic Length, L
feet100=LengthMaximum slope0.200Channel Slope, S
feet0=LengthMinimum slope0.000
Trapezoidal channel:
feet (based on site geometry)2Max. flow depth
3 Side slope, m
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use0=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Discharge, Q:
cfs42.94=15.2*8.29*0.34Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS43=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Page 2 of 2Down Channel 2Design Calculations for Channel No.
Analyzed by Normal Depth ProceedureChannel Dimensions:
feet8Bottom width, B =
feet2Minimum depth =
feet20Top width = 2m*y + B =
feet100=Length, L0.2=Slope, SMaximum slope section(s):
0.036=Manning's n coefficient2.32Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
feet (iterate)0.46Normal Depth =
fps4>fps10.0Velocity, V =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
on straight sectionpsf5.7Shear stress, T =
on curves and bendspsf6.0
12-inch rip-rapMaximum slopeLiner material for
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Estimate Flow Depth in Trapezoidal Channel by Normal Depth Procedure
Maximum slopeDown Channel 2Channel No.
12-inch rip-rapAssumed channel lining
(NCESC, Table 8.05e)0.036Manning's coefficient, n
0.2Channel Gradient, S
3Channel Side Slope, m
CFS43Q25Calculated Flow for
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-16)Rearrange Manning's Equation:
use for comparison (see below)2.32 Zreq = A*R^.0667 = Q*n/1.49*S^0.5 =
Calculate Zavg = A * R^0.667 for various flow depths by iterative procedure
feet):8 (find "normal" flow for design width, B =
CommentZavgR, ft.P, ft.A, s.f.y, ft.B, ft.
Deep2.690.4311.164.750.508
Shallow1.830.3510.533.680.408
Deep√2.320.4010.914.310.468
Shallow2.150.3810.784.100.448
Shallow2.240.3910.854.210.458
feet0.46Normal flow for design condition:
feet2Flow < max. allowable depth ofCOMMENT:
feet8Bottom width, B =Recalculate D
feet2Minimum depth =
feet20Top width = 2m*y + B =
(Reference Malcom Eq. II-11)Check Velocity:
fps4>10.0V = Q/A = Q/(B*y + M*y^2) =
Requires permanent channel liner
fps2.5>
Requires temporary liner
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.05)Tractive Force Procedure:
where y = 62.4 pcfpsf (for straight channel)5.7T = y * d * s =
1.05Kb min =(for bend in channel)6.0Tb = Kb * T =
feet75Rc =
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of1Page
DP1, Inlet DFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for west side, highest section (Bench D)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%0.86lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%0.86Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres0.86Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)530Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use3=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs2.49=0.86*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS3=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of2Page
DP1, Inlet CFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for west side, third section (Bench C)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.5lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.50Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres1.50Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area60Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)750Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use3=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs4.35=1.5*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS5=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of3Page
DP1, Inlet BFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for west side, second section (Bench B)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%2.03lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%2.03Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres2.03Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area90Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)1000Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use4=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs5.89=2.03*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS6=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of4Page
DP1, Inlet AFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for west side, lowest section (Bench A)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%2.59lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%2.59Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres2.59Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area120Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)1250Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use5=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs7.51=2.59*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS8=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of5Page
Down Pipe 1Size Inlets for Slope Drain:
Debo, T.N., and Reese, A.J., Municipal Storm Water Management,Reference:
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1995, pp. 438-442.
ABCDInlet Parameters:
2.592.031.50.86Area (each bench), acres
8653Peak flow, Q25, cfs
3222Allowable HW depth, feet
1111Number of pipes, N
18181818Inlet diameter, D (inches)
1.210.90.75Critical depth, dc (feet)
CPECPECPECPEType of drainage pipe
780810840870Inlet Elev. (Invert along Bench)
100100100100Exit Culvert length, L (feet)
0.300.300.300.30Culvert slope, S (feet/feet)
0.0240.0240.0240.024Manning's coefficient, n
0.70.70.70.5Entrance loss coefficient, ke
ProjectingProjectingProjectingProjectingType of Inlet along Bench
PipePipePipePipe
Determine Governing Control:
Re: Inlet NomographInlet:
1.31.10.940.7HW/D =User input
2.01.71.41.1HW, feet =
Re: Outlet NomographOutlet:
ho = (dc + D) / 2 = tailwater head
HW = H + ho - (L * S) = hydr. head
1.351.251.21.125ho, feet =
7.52.21.20.4H, feet =User input
-21.15-26.55-27.6-28.475HW, feet =
InletInletInletInletGoverning Control Condition:
OKOKOKOKIs HW depth OK?
Note: If HW for the governing case too deep, must use a larger diameter pipe or make
berm higher; e.g., if HW is OK, then pipe diameter and berm height are sufficient.
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of6PageDP1Size the Main PipeD = 16 * [ (Q * n) / s^1/2 ]^3/8CPEPipe Data:25-yearDesign Storm:0.024Manning's n =232g =V = (s^1/2 * D^2/3) / (8.9 *n)Note: Q not rounded up (as used previously!)23h =QCIABenchSegmentSegmentV fullPipeD theoSlopePeakRunoffRunoffTime ofPipeInletTotal DrainsPipeElevationTimeLengthSizeDischargeCoeffic.IntensityConc.TimeTimeAreaBenchesSectionmin.feetft/secinchesinchesft/ftcfsin/hrmin.min.min.acres8700.110017.6186.90.302.50.358.295.0050.85DDP 1d8400.110017.61810.20.306.80.358.265.10.152.36C, DDP 1c8100.110017.61812.80.3012.70.358.265.10.154.39B - DDP 1b7800.110017.61815.30.3020.20.358.265.10.156.98A - DDP 1aProject Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of1Page
DP2, Inlet DFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for north side, highest section (Bench D)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.04lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.04Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres1.04Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)580Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use3=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs3.02=1.04*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS4=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of2Page
DP2, Inlet CFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for north side, third section (Bench C)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.66lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.66Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres1.66Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)810Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use5=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs4.81=1.66*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS5=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of3Page
DP2, Inlet BFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for north side, second section (Bench B)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%2.18lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%2.18Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres2.18Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)970Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use6=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs6.32=2.18*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS7=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of4Page
DP2, Inlet AFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for north side, lowest section (Bench A)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%2.54lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%2.54Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres2.54Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)1200Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use8=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs7.37=2.54*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS8=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of5Page
Down Pipe 2Size Inlets for Slope Drain:
Debo, T.N., and Reese, A.J., Municipal Storm Water Management,Reference:
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1995, pp. 438-442.
ABCDInlet Parameters:
2.542.181.661.04Area (each bench), acres
8754Peak flow, Q25, cfs
3222Allowable HW depth, feet
1111Number of pipes, N
18181818Inlet diameter, D (inches)
1.210.90.8Critical depth, dc (feet)
CPECPECPECPEType of drainage pipe
780810840870Inlet Elev. (Invert along Bench)
60110120110Exit Culvert length, L (feet)
0.300.300.300.30Culvert slope, S (feet/feet)
0.0240.0240.0240.024Manning's coefficient, n
0.70.70.70.7Entrance loss coefficient, ke
ProjectingProjectingProjectingProjectingType of Inlet along Bench
PipePipePipePipe
Determine Governing Control:
Re: Inlet NomographInlet:
1.31.10.940.8HW/D =User input
2.01.71.41.2HW, feet =
Re: Outlet NomographOutlet:
ho = (dc + D) / 2 = tailwater head
HW = H + ho - (L * S) = hydr. head
1.351.251.21.15ho, feet =
84.51.10.45H, feet =User input
-8.65-27.25-33.7-31.4HW, feet =
InletInletInletInletGoverning Control Condition:
OKOKOKOKIs HW depth OK?
Note: If HW for the governing case too deep, must use a larger diameter pipe or make
berm higher; e.g., if HW is OK, then pipe diameter and berm height are sufficient.
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
6of6PageDP2Size the Main PipeD = 16 * [ (Q * n) / s^1/2 ]^3/8CPEPipe Data:25-yearDesign Storm:0.024Manning's n =232g =V = (s^1/2 * D^2/3) / (8.9 *n)Note: Q not rounded up (as used previously!)23h =QCIABenchSegmentSegmentV fullPipeD theoSlopePeakRunoffRunoffTime ofPipeInletTotal DrainsPipeElevationTimeLengthSizeDischargeCoeffic.IntensityConc.TimeTimeAreaBenchesSectionmin.feetft/secinchesinchesft/ftcfsin/hrmin.min.min.acres8700.16017.6187.50.303.00.358.295.0051.04DDP 2d8400.111017.61810.70.307.80.358.275.10.152.7C, DDP 2c8100.112017.61813.40.3014.10.358.265.10.154.88B - DDP 2b7800.111017.61815.60.3021.40.358.255.10.157.42A - DDP 2aProject Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
5of1Page
DP3, Inlet EFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for east side, highest section (Final Cap)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
0.000.350%0lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
22.000.22100%1.06lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
22.00100%1.06Summation
0.22=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres1.06Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)6Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)550Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use6=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs1.93=1.06*8.29*0.22Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS2=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
5of2Page
DP3, Inlet DFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for east side, second section (Bench D)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.12lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.12Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres1.12Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)810Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use5=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs3.25=1.12*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS4=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
5of3Page
DP3, Inlet CFlow Calculations for Slope Drain:
Slope drain for east side, first section (Bench C)Description:
Designed for post-closure conditions (anticipated max. flow)
ProductCi, RunoffPercentDrainageSlope Conditions:
(Ai x Ci)CoefficientArea, AiArea, ac.
35.000.35100%1.78lawn, steep (>7%)Side slopes
0.000.220%0lawn, (2 – 7%)Cap areas
0.000.220%0lawn, steep (>7%)Off-site
35.00100%1.78Summation
0.35=AiΣ(Ai x Ci) /ΣComposite Runoff Coefficient, C =
Runoff conditions for drainage to the pipeDesign Conditions:
acres1.78Drainage Area, A
feet (height above outlet within drainage area)30Maximum Relief, H
feet (distance along main drainage feature)970Hydraulic Length, L
Not the pipe length!
(Reference Malcom Exhibit 2)Time of Concentration:
minutes5minutes, use6=Kirpich's Equation, Tc = [L^3/H]^0.385/128
(Reference NCESC, App. 8.03)Runoff Intensity:
in/hr8.29I =23h =232g =Runoff Intensity, I = g/(h + Tc), where
For 25-year, 5-minute storm, for Greensboro, NC
(Reference Malcolm Eq. II-1)Determine Peak Discharge, Q:
cfs5.16=1.78*8.29*0.35Rational Eq'n , Q = CIA =
CFS6=Q25
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
5of4Page
Down Pipe 2Size Inlets for Slope Drain:
Debo, T.N., and Reese, A.J., Municipal Storm Water Management,Reference:
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1995, pp. 438-442.
CDEInlet Parameters:
1.781.121.06Area (each bench), acres
642Peak flow, Q25, cfs
222Allowable HW depth, feet
111Number of pipes, N
181212Inlet diameter, D (inches)
1.10.90.6Critical depth, dc (feet)
CPECPECPEType of drainage pipe
810840870Inlet Elev. (Invert along Bench)
110110100Exit Culvert length, L (feet)
0.300.300.30Culvert slope, S (feet/feet)
0.0240.0240.024Manning's coefficient, n
0.70.70.5Entrance loss coefficient, ke
ProjectingProjectingFlared-endType of Inlet along Bench
PipePipePipe
Determine Governing Control:
Re: Inlet NomographInlet:
1.11.91HW/D =User input
1.71.91.0HW, feet =
Re: Outlet NomographOutlet:
ho = (dc + D) / 2 = tailwater head
HW = H + ho - (L * S) = hydr. head
1.30.950.8ho, feet =
4.51.10.45H, feet =User input
-27.2-30.95-28.75HW, feet =
InletInletInletGoverning Control Condition:
OKOKOKIs HW depth OK?
Note: If HW for the governing case too deep, must use a larger diameter pipe or make
berm higher; e.g., if HW is OK, then pipe diameter and berm height are sufficient.
Project Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09 David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
5of5PageDP3Size the Main PipeD = 16 * [ (Q * n) / s^1/2 ]^3/8CPEPipe Data:25-yearDesign Storm:0.024Manning's n =232g =V = (s^1/2 * D^2/3) / (8.9 *n)Note: Q not rounded up (as used previously!)23h =QCIABenchSegmentSegmentV fullPipeD theoSlopePeakRunoffRunoffTime ofPipeInletTotal DrainsPipeElevationTimeLengthSizeDischargeCoeffic.IntensityConc.TimeTimeAreaBenchesSectionmin.feetft/secinchesinchesft/ftcfsin/hrmin.min.min.acres8700.16013.5127.50.303.10.358.295.0051.06Final CapDP 3e8400.111013.5129.90.306.30.358.265.10.152.18D, CapDP 3d8100.112017.61812.30.3011.40.358.255.10.153.96C, D, CapDP 3cProject Name: A-1Sandrock, Inc. 02/22/09David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Appendix 4
Operation Plan Information
Appendix 4A
Waste Screening Form
WASTE SCREENING FORM Facility I.D. __________________
Permit No. __________________
Day / Date: ______________________ Time Weighed in: ______________________
Truck Owner: ______________________ Driver Name: ______________________
Truck Type: ______________________ Vehicle ID/Tag No: ______________________
Weight: ______________________ Tare: ______________________
Waste Generator / Source: _________________________________________________________________
Inspection Location: _________________________________________________________________
Reason Load Inspected: Random Inspection _______ Staff Initials ________
Detained at Scales _______ Staff Initials ________
Detained by Field Staff _______ Staff Initials ________
Description of Load: _________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Approved Waste Determination Form Present? (Check one) Yes______ No ______ N/A____
Load Accepted (signature) _______________________________ Date _______________
Load Not Accepted (signature) _______________________________ Date _______________
Reason Load Not Accepted (complete below only if load not accepted) _____________________________
Description of Suspicious Contents: Color ________ Haz. Waste Markings ___________
Texture ________ Odor/Fumes___________________
Drums Present ________ Other ________________________
(describe)_____________________
Est. Cu. Yds. Present in Load ________
Est. Tons Present in Load ________
Identified Hazardous Materials Present:______________________________________________________
County Emergency Management Authority Contacted? Yes______ No ______
Generator Authority Contacted? _________________________________________________________
Hauler Notified (check if waste not accepted)? ____ Phone ______________ Time Contacted ________
Final Disposition of Load _________________________________________________________________
Signed ___________________________________________Date ________________________
Solid Waste Director
Attach related correspondence to this form. File completed form in Operating Record.
Appendix 4B
Fire Notification Form
FIRE OCCURRENCE NOTIFICATION
NC DENR Division of Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
The Solid Waste Rules [15A NCAC 13B, Section 1626(5)(d) and Section .0505(10)(c)] require verbal notification within 24
hours and submission of a written notification within 15 days of the occurrence. The completion of this form shall satisfy
that requirement. (If additional space is needed, use back of this form)
NAME OF FACILITY: ______________________ PERMIT #_______________
DATE AND TIME OF FIRE ________/_____/_____ @ _____: ____ AM / PM (circle one)
HOW WAS THE FIRE REPORTED AND BY WHOM ______________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
LIST ACTIONS TAKEN_______________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE_________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
DESCRIBE AREA, TYPE, AND AMOUNT OF WASTE INVOLVED__________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO PREVENT THIS FIRE______________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT STATUS OF FIRE __________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
DESCRIBE PLAN OF ACTIONS TO PREVENT FUTURE INCIDENTS: _______________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
NAME_______________________TITLE__________________________DATE_______________
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY SOLID WASTE SECTION REGIONAL STAFF
DATE RECEIVED____________________________
List any factors not listed that might have contributed to the fire or that might prevent occurrence of future fires:
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED: † NO † PHONE CALL † SUBMITTAL † MEETING † RETURN VISIT BY:____________________ (DATE)
ACTIONS TAKEN OR REQUIRED:
Revised 6/29/01
Appendix 4C
Hazardous Waste Responders
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTACTS
The following contacts were originally found on NC DENR Division of Waste Management’s web
site in early 2007; since then, local phone numbers have been updated based on internet research.
Facility management should verify the availability of these contacts before an emergency. The
reference listing of these organizations here is not an endorsement by either the Division or the
preparer of this document, nor are any affiliations in existence or implied. For more information
refer to the respective URL’s.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Clean Harbours Reidsville, NC 336-342-6107
www.cleanharbors.com
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
www.egarco.com
Safety-Kleen Reidsville, NC 336-669-5562
(a.k.a. Clean Harbours)
Zebra Environmental Services High Point, NC 336-841-5276
www.zebraenviro.com
TRANSPORTERS
ECOFLO Greensboro, NC 336-855-7925
www.ecoflo.com
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
Zebra Environmental Services High Point, NC 336-841-5276
USED OIL AND ANTIFREEZE
3RC Resource Recovery Winston-Salem, NC 336-784-4300
Carolina Environmental Associates Burlington, NC 336-299-0058
Environmental Recycling Alternatives High Point, NC 336-905-7231
FLUORESCENT HANDLERS
3RC Resource Recovery Winston-Salem, NC 336-784-4300
Carolina Environmental Associates Burlington, NC 336-299-0058
ECOFLO Greensboro, NC 336-855-7925
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
Safety-Kleen Reidsville, NC 800-334-5953
PCB DISPOSAL
ECOFLO Greensboro, NC 336-855-7925
GARCO, Inc. Asheboro, NC 336-683-0911
Zebra Environmental Services High Point, NC 336-841-5276
Useful Agencies and Contacts http://www.wastenotnc.org/HWHOME/USEFUL.htm
1 of 2 12/28/2007 12:30 AM
U S E F U L A G E N C I E S a n d C O N T A C T S
Air Permits
NC Div. of Air Quality
919-733-3340
Indoor Air Quality, US
EPA
Info Hotline
1-800-438-4318
Asbestos
Environmental
Epidemiology
Mary Giguere
919-707-5950
Customer Call Center
DENR
1-877-623-6748
Drinking Water
Environmental Health
Jessica Miles
919-715-3232
Safe Drinking Water
US EPA
1-800-426-4791
Emergencies 24 hours
Emergency Management
919-733-3300
919-733-9070
1-800-858-0368
Energy Division
Hotline
NC Commerce Dept.
1-800-662-7131
Environmental
Education
Office of Env. Education
1-800-482-8724
Environmental
Education
NC Cooperative Ext.
Service
NCSU
919-515-2770
Federal Register
RCRA/Superfund/UST
1-800-424-9346
Fluorescent Lights
Green lights Hotline
202-775-6650
EPA Energy Star
1-888-782-7937
Freon
US EPA Region 4
Pam McIlvane
404-562-9197
Groundwater
Division of Water Quality
None Dedicated Soil
Disposal
Ted Bush
919-733-3221
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste Section
919-508-8400
Household Hazardous
Waste
Solid Waste Section
Bill Patrakis
336-771-5091
Lab Certification
Water Quality
Jim Meyer
919-733-3908
ext. 207
Land Farm
Division of Water Quality
David Goodrich
919-715-6162
Landfills
Solid Waste Section
Division of Waste
Management
919-508-8400
Lead Abatement
Division of Public Health
Jeff Dellinger
919-733-0668
Childhood Lead
Poisoning
Environmental Health
Ed Norman
919-715-3293
National Lead Info.
Center
1-800-LEAD-FYI
1-800-532-3394
Medical Waste
Solid Waste Section
Bill Patrakis
919-508-8512
Oil Pollution
Aquifer Protection
Section
Debra Watts
919-715-6699
OSHA-Health
Consultations
NC Dept of Labor
Roedreick Wilce
919-852-4379
OSHA Training &
Outreach
NC Dept. of Labor
Joe Bailey
919-807-2891
Stratosphere Ozone
US EPA
Information Hot Line
1-800-296-1996
PCBs
TSCA, EPA Region 4
Craig Brown
404-562-8980
TSCA Assistance Info.
202-554-1404
Pesticides Disposal
Assistance Program
NC Dept. of Agriculture
Hazardous Waste
Royce Batts
919-715-9023
Pesticide Info. Hotline
1-800-858-7378
Petroleum Product
Soil Disposal, UST
Scott Ryals
919-733-8486
Pollution Prevention
& Environmental
Assistance
919-715-6500
1-800-763-0136
Useful Agencies and Contacts http://www.wastenotnc.org/HWHOME/USEFUL.htm
2 of 2 12/28/2007 12:30 AM
Public Affairs, DENR
Diana Kees
Acting Director
919-715-4112
Public Right to Know
Employee Right to Know
OSHA, Dept. of Labor
Anthony Bonapart
919-807-2846
Radiation Materials
Radiation Protection
Beverley Hall
919-571-4141
Recycling Markets
Directory
What Can I do with it?
919-715-6500
Toxic Release
Reporting
Emergency Planning
SARA Title III
Richard Berman
919-733-1361
1-800-451-1403 (24
hours)
Run Off
Water Quality
919-733-5083
Safety Hotline
NC Dept. Of Labor
1-800-LABOR-NC
919-807-2796
Septic Tanks,
On-site Treatment
System
Environmental Health
Steven Berkowitz
919-733-2895
Sewer Discharges
Pre-Treatment
Public Owned
Treatment
(POTW)
919-733-5083
Small Business
Ombudsman
US EPA
1-800-368-5888
Spill Reporting
1-800-858-0368
State Operator
919-733-1110
Stormwater, Permits
Unit
Water Quality
919-733-5083
1-800-858-0368
Superfund
Federal Sites
Dave Lown
919-508-8464
State Inactive Sites
Charlotte Jesneck
919-508-8460
Toxicology
Env. Epidemiology
Occupational Surveillance
919-707-5900
Transport Hazardous
Waste
Division of Motor Vehicle
(NC DOT)
Sgt. T.R. Askew
919-715-8683
US DOT Regulations
Office of Motor Carriers
Chris Hartley
919-856-4378
Underground Storage
Tanks
Grover Nicholson
919-733-1300
Waste Minimization
Pollution Prevention &
Environmental Assistance
919-715-6500
1-800-763-0136
Wetlands Info Hotline
US EPA
1-800-832-7828
North Carolina Division of Waste Management - 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1646 - (919)
508-8400
Appendix 4D
Asphalt Shingles Recycling
General Operation Plan
For Tear-off Asphalt Shingle Sorting
At a Solid Waste Permitted Facility
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF
and Recycling Facility
Permit #41-17
Prepared for
Ronnie E. Petty, III
A-1 Sandrock, Inc.
2091 Bishop Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
Prepared by
G. David Garrett, PG, PE
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
November 6, 2013
Site specific information
a. The maximum amount of shingles to be stockpiled at any
time is 40 cubic yards, or the equivalent of one roll-off box.
b. The service area for shingle receipt must be consistent with
the landfill service area.
c. The Owner/Operator must keep contact information for the
contracting shingle recycling company with the records of
incoming and outgoing shingles. Any changes must be
reflected in the records.
d.No grinding of asphalt shingles shall be conducted at
the T&P unit.
The Owner/operator shall refer to the following generic plan,
provided by the Solid Waste Section, which includes acceptance
criteria for recycling and documentation for the sources of
incoming loads (example form).
APPENDIX 5
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 1
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Solid Waste Permit #41-17)
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan
December 20, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Documents Incorporated by Reference ...................................................................................................... 2 
Revisions ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 
Certification................................................................................................................................................... 3 
1.0  REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................ 4 
1.1  Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4 
1.2   Monitoring Location Criteria ............................................................................................................ 5 
2.0  Changes to the Monitoring Program ............................................................................................... 5 
2.1   Sampling Schedule and Term ........................................................................................................... 5 
2.2  Monitoring Locations ....................................................................................................................... 6 
2.3  Sampling Protocols .......................................................................................................................... 6 
2.4  Reporting of Data ............................................................................................................................. 7 
3.0  Other Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 7 
3.1  Well Rehabilitation and Abandonment ........................................................................................... 7 
3.2  Additional Well Installations ............................................................................................................ 7 
3.3   Well Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 8 
3.4  Modifications and Revisions ............................................................................................................ 8 
TABLES 
1 Monitoring Well Construction Data
2 Required Analytical Parameters
ATTACHMENTS 
1 Drawing M1
2 Monitoring well construction logs
3 Monitoring Well Schematics (Type 2 and Type 3)
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 2
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE*
1 Solid Waste Section Guidelines for Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling,
State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste
Management, Solid Waste Section, Rev 4-08
2 New Guidelines for the Submittal of Environmental Monitoring Data, Solid Waste Section
Memorandum, October 27, 2006
3 Environmental Monitoring Data Form
4 February 23, 2007 Addendum to the October 27, 2006 Memorandum
5 October 16, 2007 Memorandum
6 November 5, 2014 Memorandum
7 May 2018 Memorandum
8 July 2018 Memorandum
*available online at http://www.wastenotnc.org/swhome/EnvMonitoring/SolidWasteSamplingGuidance.pdf
REVISIONS
0 Water Quality Monitoring Plan, A-1 Sandrock CDLF (South Facility) Sep. 2002
1 Amendment to support Phase 1 PTC, A-1 Sandrock CDLF (Permit 41-17) Feb. 2009
2 Corrections to February 2009 plan text, Sep. 2013
3 Amendment to support Phase 2 PTC/PTO (Added MW-6), Mar 2015
4 Amendment to support Phase 3 PTC and Assessment Monitoring (Added MW-7)
Upon approval by NC DENR-Division of Waste Management, this plan will supersede all
previous versions for the detection-phase monitoring of the CDLF.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 4
1.0  REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 
1.1  Background 
Monitoring of the A-1 Sandrock, Inc., CDLF ground and surface water quality is required by NC
DEQ Solid Waste Section rules 15A NCAC 13B .0544 et. seq. The Facility has performed
Detection stage water quality monitoring since its opening in 2009. Recent regulatory emphasis
has been placed on metals concentrations at CDLF’s, which has triggered the requirement for
this Facility to enter an Assessment monitoring program.
The Facility is located at 2091 Bishop Road, south of Greensboro, North Carolina. The Facility is
within the Randleman Reservoir Watershed, though not in the critical water supply area. The
surrounding area is rural but gradually undergoing commercial and/or industrial development.
Ground water is the principal source for the local potable water supply; no downgradient water
supply wells have been identified.
The current monitoring well network consists of six wells: MW-1 is the background well and MW2
through MW-5 are compliance wells. There are four surface water sampling locations along the
boundary streams (see Drawing M1). The monitoring network is based on site studies performed
in 2002, 2015 and 2017-18. Sampling and analysis are performed in accordance with the SWS
Guidelines, Reference 1.
Historic sampling has been based on the Appendix I list of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 258, which includes the common volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 8 RCRA metals.
In addition, the SWS requires sampling for mercury, manganese, iron, chloride, sulfate, alkalinity,
tetrahydrofuran, total dissolved solids (TDS), specific conductivity, pH and temperature.
Analytical protocols and reporting criteria have been modified by the referenced memoranda and
guidelines.
Sampling has been conducted at semi-annual intervals, typically in November and May.
Applicable regulatory requirements include:
15A NCAC 13B .0544 (Solid Waste Construction and Demolition Rules)
15A NCAC 2C (Well Construction Rules)
15A NCAC 2L (Ground Water Classifications and Standards)
15A NCAC 27 (Well Contractor Certification Rules)
15A NCAC 2H (Water Quality Laboratory Certification Rules)
Requirements of additional monitoring points and sampling criteria germane to the Assessment
are discussed in Section 2.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 5
1.2   Monitoring Location Criteria 
The monitoring well network consists of six wells (MW-1 through MW-), each located to monitor
the saprolite aquifer (Unit 1) and/or the transition zone within the bedrock (Unit 2). These units
are discussed in detail within the Phase 3 Design Hydrogeologic Report. The wells surround
the CDLF footprint and are located near the regulatory review boundary, approximately 150 feet
from the waste boundary, and no closer than 50 feet inside the facility boundary. Well locations
were selected based on topographic relationships, depths to groundwater and bedrock, and a
fracture trace analysis. The site studies indicate the groundwater flow direction is primarily to the
west. The wells have been designated as MW-1 (up-gradient, background well), MW-2 and MW5
(cross-gradient, compliance wells), and MW-3, MW-4, and MW-6 (down-gradient compliance
wells). Note that with the opening of Phase 3, MW-2 will become downgradient.
Surface water sample locations are designated as SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, and SW-4. SW-1 is
located at the northwest boundary where Hickory Creek enters the Facility. SW-2 is located along
an unnamed tributary to Hickory Creek where it enters the east side of the landfill. SW-3 is located
along an unnamed tributary to Hickory Creek where it enters the south side of the landfill. SW-4
is located downstream on Hickory Creek, where it exits the southwest corner of the Facility. All
streams originate off-site but form the boundaries of a small watershed occupied by the CDLF.
Current locations of the monitoring wells and surface water points are depicted in Drawing M1
(see Attachment 1). Details of the well construction are shown on Table 1 following this text.
Monitoring well construction logs are presented in Attachment 2.
2.0  CHANGES TO THE MONITORING PROGRAM 
2.1   Sampling Schedule and Term 
Sampling shall be conducted on a semi-annual basis, specifically once in the spring and once in
the fall. Monitoring shall be conducted for the duration of operations and for a minimum of 30
years following final closure, unless the schedule is amended by the SWS.
A requirement of the Assessment is the gathering of data from four background sampling events,
followed by statistical analyses and reporting. The tentative schedule for the next two years of
Assessment monitoring follows:
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #1 Nov 2018
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #2 May 2019
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #3 Nov 2019
Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Event #4 May 2020
Alternate Source Demonstration Report July 2020
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 6
2.2  Monitoring Locations 
Per the requirements of 15A NCAC 13B .0545, as part of the Assessment, the Facility is required
to install a new monitoring well. As part of a negotiated Assessment Monitoring Plan prepared in
2018, a new well shall be installed downgradient of MW-4 during the 1st Quarter of 2019, prior to
the May 2019 sampling event. A tentative location for the new well, to be labeled MW-7, is shown
in Drawing M1. Likewise, an additional surface water sampling station will be established in the
stream (Hickory Creek) downgradient of MW-4.
2.3  Sampling Protocols 
All sampling activities will be conducted in accordance with Solid Waste Section Guidelines for
Groundwater, Soil, and Surface Water Sampling, 2008, as amended by multiple guidance
documents listed in the Reference Documents
Groundwater samples will be collected from the seven monitoring wells using low flow sampling
techniques according to EPA sampling guidance to minimize the turbidity of the samples.
Typically, this is accomplished with a peristaltic pump and dedicated Tygon™ tubing for each
well. The goal is to reduce turbidity values to < 10 NTU. An option is to re-develop the wells if
needed. Samples will be preserved and shipped to the laboratory under a chain-of-custody in the
conventional manner.
Prior to sample collection, the depth to groundwater will be measured and each well will be purged
to allow the groundwater geochemical parameters (i.e., pH, DO, ORP, temperature, and specific
conductivity) to stabilize. Turbidity less than the NCDEQ recommended value of 10 NTU will also
be obtained prior to sample collection. During each assessment monitoring event, field
parameters including pH, DO, ORP, temperature, turbidity, and specific conductivity will be
recorded for each well.
Surface water samples will be collected into laboratory-provided containers via direct submersion
into the creek and/or tributary by a technician wearing a new pair of nitrile gloves. One set of
surface water field parameters consisting of pH, DO, ORP, temperature, turbidity, and specific
conductivity will be measured and recorded at each sampling location prior to sample collection.
Groundwater and surface water samples will be analyzed for the organic constituents listed in
Appendix I of the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 258, along with tetrahydrofuran, the
metal constituents listed in Appendix II of the 40 CFR Part 258 including mercury, and additional
constituents including total iron (EPA Method 6010), ferric iron (SM 3500-Fe D#4), ferrous iron
(SM 3500-Fe B), total manganese (EPA Method 6010), chloride (EPA Method 300), alkalinity (SM
2320B), sulfate (EPA Method 300), sulfide (SM 4500 S=F), and total dissolved solids (TDS)
(SM2540C), in addition to field parameters. Table 2 lists the required sampling parameters.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 7
2.4  Reporting of Data 
Analytical results will be evaluated to determine if the concentrations of constituents are
influenced by aquifer conditions within the landfill (i.e., naturally-occurring metals, fluctuations in
groundwater geochemistry). Following each semi-annual groundwater assessment monitoring
event, an assessment monitoring report will be prepared in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B
.0545(b)(7) and submitted to the SWS. The reports will include analytical results, tables and
figures, and potentiometric surface maps.
Following the fourth assessment monitoring event and/or the establishment of background
concentrations (the goal of the Assessment program), the data will be evaluated to determine
whether potential alternative sources other than the landfill exist. This work will be incorporated
into an alternate source demonstration report. The alternate source demonstration report will be
prepared and submitted to the SWS in accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .0545(b)(8).
3.0  OTHER REQUIREMENTS 
3.1  Well Rehabilitation and Abandonment 
The Facility operator shall take precautions to avoid disturbing any monitoring well, including
training staff not to bump the wells when mowing or traversing the site. Should wells become
irreversibly damaged or require rehabilitation, the SWS shall be notified. If monitoring wells and/or
piezometers within unconsolidated formations are damaged irreversibly they shall be abandoned
by over-drilling and/or pulling the well casing and plugging the well with an impermeable,
chemically-inert sealant such as neat cement grout and/or bentonite clay.
For bedrock wells the abandonment shall consist of plugging the interior well riser and screen
with an impermeable neat cement grout and/or bentonite clay sealant. Piezometers in the waste
footprint shall be abandoned by over drilling the boring and backfilling with a bentonite-cement
grout. All well repairs or abandonment shall be certified by a NC-licensed geologist or engineer.
3.2  Additional Well Installations 
All additional monitoring wells (new or replacement) shall be installed under the supervision of a
qualified geologist or engineer who is registered in North Carolina and who shall certify to the
SWS that the installation complies with the North Carolina Regulations. Documentation for the
installation of future wells shall be submitted by the registered geologist or engineer after well
completion.
Newly constructed wells shall be developed to remove particulates that are present in the well
due to construction activities, and to interconnect the well with the aquifer. Development of new
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 8
monitoring wells will be performed no sooner than 24 hours after well construction. Wells may be
developed with disposable bailers, a mechanical well developer, or other approved method.
A surge block may be used as a means of assessing the integrity of the well screen and riser. In
the event a pump is employed, the design of the pump will be such that any groundwater that has
contacted air is not allowed to drain back into the well. In general, each well will be developed
until sediment-free water with stabilized field parameters (i.e., temperature, pH, and specific
conductance) is obtained.
Well development equipment (bailers, pumps, surge blocks) and any additional equipment that
contacts subsurface formations shall be decontaminated prior to on-site use, between
consecutive on-site uses, and/or between consecutive well installations. The purge water will be
disposed of on the ground surface at least 10 feet downgradient of the monitoring well that is
being purged, unless field characteristics suggest the purge water should be containerized and
disposed of by approved means.
3.3   Well Maintenance 
The existing monitoring wells shall be used and maintained in accordance with design
specifications throughout the life of the monitoring program. Routine well maintenance will include
inspection and correction/repair of, as necessary, identification labels, concrete aprons, locking
caps and locks, and access to the wells.
Should it be determined that background or compliance monitoring wells no longer provide
samples representative of the quality of ground water passing the relevant point of compliance,
the SWS shall be notified. The owner shall evaluate the monitoring network and provide a plan
to the SWS for modifying, rehabilitating, decommissioning, or installing replacement wells or
additional monitoring wells, as appropriate.
3.4  Modifications and Revisions 
At a future time, it may be appropriate to modify this plan, e.g. add or delete sampling locations
or analytical parameters. Such changes require advance approval from the SWS. Also, this plan
will be reviewed periodically and amended as needed. Users of this plan are advised to check
the revision section for the latest edition.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 4 12/20/2018
Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan Page 3
CERTIFICATION
This water quality monitoring plan has been prepared by a qualified geologist who is licensed to
practice in the State of North Carolina. The plan was prepared based on firsthand knowledge of
site conditions and familiarity with North Carolina solid waste rules and industry standard protocol.
In accordance with North Carolina Solid Waste Regulations, this Water Quality Monitoring Plan
amendment should provide early detection of any release of hazardous constituents to the
uppermost aquifer, to be protective of public health and the environment. No other warranties,
expressed or implied, are made.
Signed _______________
Printed G. David Garrett
Date December 20, 2018
Not valid unless this document bears the seal of the above-named licensed professional.

TABLES 

TABLE 1AMonitoring Well and Surface Sampling Location DataLocation and Elevation DataLithologic DataBoring Northing Easting PVC Pipe Ground Drilling Total Bottom PWR BedrockNumberCoordinate1Coordinate1Elevation2Elevation2Method Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev.MW-13815,671.56 1,749,908.65 816.05 813.40 HSA/Core 44.0 769.40 13 800.40 19 794.40MW-2 815,438.94 1,749,056.29 761.92 759.90 HSA/Core 33.0 726.90 8 751.90 13 746.90MW-3 815,693.01 1,748,698.85 731.82 729.80 HSA 33.0 696.809 720.80 33 696.80MW-4 816,281.49 1,748,723.33 733.17 731.10 HSA 24.0 707.1011 720.10 24 707.10MW-5 816,702.88 1,749,461.06 762.88 761.10 HSA/Core 28.5 732.60 4 757.10 8 753.10MW-6 816,499.93 1,748,826.85 755.89 753.10 HSA 45.00 708.10 31.00 722.10 45.00 708.10Well Construction DataStabilized WaterBoring PVC Pipe Ground Stickup Top of Screen Bot. of Screen Level at 24 HoursNumberElevation2Elevation2ft. Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev. Depth, ft. Elev.MW-13816.05 813.40 2.6 34.0 779.4 44.0 769.4 34.0 779.4MW-2 761.92 759.90 2.0 23.0 736.9 33.0 726.9 13.6 746.3MW-3 731.82 729.80 2.0 28.0 701.8 33.0 696.8 8.0 721.8MW-4 733.17 731.10 2.1 9.0 722.1 24.0 707.1 13.0 718.1MW-5 762.88 761.10 1.8 28.5 732.6 28.5 732.6 17.2 743.9MW-6 755.89 753.10 2.8 30.00 723.1 45.00 708.1 39.00 716.9TABLE 1BExisting Surface Sampling LocationsMonitoring Location Description of Monitoring LocationSW-13Background on Hickory Creek (at Colonial Pipeline crossing)SW-2 3, 4Background on “north” unnamed tributary (at property line)SW-3 4Background on “south” unnamed tributary (at property line)SW-4Down gradient on Hickory Creek (below stream convergence)Notes: 1. NAD83 (2007)PWR = Partially Weathered Rock, or 100+ bpf material2. NGVD293. Background monitoring location4. These streams can go dry during late summer, sample subject to flow conditionsSurvey by Allied Associates, P.A., April 7, 2009 except MW-6, surveyed April 8, 2015PWRBedrockPWRMonitored HydrogeologicUnitBedrockBedrockPWR
TABLE 2
Required Monitoring Consituents
Group SWS ID1
Appendix I 3 - 346
Appendix II2 1 - 440
1,4-dioxane, ug/l 422
C&D Specific
Chloride, ug/l 301
Total Dissolved Solids, ug/l 311
Sulfate, ug/l 315
Alkalinity, ug/l 337
Iron, ug/l 340
Manganese, ug/l 342
Tetrahydrofuran, ug/l 441
Facility Specific
Ferrous Iron, ug/l 334
Field Parameters
Oxidation Reduction potential, ±volts 336
Specific Conductivity, umho/m 323
pH, standard units 320
Temperature, oC 325
Total Suspended Solids, mg/l 343
Turbidity, ntu 330
Top of Casing, MSL 328
Depth to Water, feet 318
Total Well Depth, feet 411
1 Unique SWS identification number, see references below and attached
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/waste-management-permit-guidance/
solid-waste-section/environmental-monitoring
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WasteManagement/0/edoc/1257181/SWS_EnviroMonitoring_Constituents_List.pdf
?searchid=13f8efb1-ee11-485a-b03f-718f2287b271
2 Required for duration of Assessment Monitoring Program
NC Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
CAS RN 2 SWS ID 3 CHEMICAL NAME 2L 2L IMAC MCL
DEQ Calculated
GWP Std Reference List
4
67-64-1 3 Acetone 6000 NE NE NE Appendix I
107-13-1 8 Acrylonitrile NE NE NE NE Appendix I
7440-36-0 13 Antimony NE 1 6 NE Appendix I
7440-38-2 14 Arsenic 10 NE 10 NE Appendix I
7440-39-3 15 Barium 700 NE 2000 NE Appendix I
71-43-2 16 Benzene 1 NE 5 NE Appendix I
7440-41-7 23 Beryllium NE 4 4 NE Appendix I
74-97-5 28 Bromochloromethane; Chlorobromethane NE NE NE 0.6 Appendix I
75-27-4 29 Bromodichloromethane; Dibromochloromethane 0.6 NE 80 NE Appendix I
75-25-2 30 Bromoform; Tribromomethane 4 NE 80 NE Appendix I
7440-43-9 34 Cadmium 2 NE 5 NE Appendix I
75-15-0 35 Carbon disulfide 700 NE NE NE Appendix I
56-23-5 36 Carbon tetrachloride 0.3 NE 5 NE Appendix I
108-90-7 39 Chlorobenzene 50 NE 100 NE Appendix I
75-00-3 41 Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 3000 NE NE NE Appendix I
67-66-3 44 Chloroform; Trichloromethane 70 NE 80 NE Appendix I
7440-47-3 51 Chromium 10 NE 100 NE Appendix I
7440-48-4 53 Cobalt NE 1 NE NE Appendix I
7440-50-8 54 Copper 1000 NE 1300 NE Appendix I
124-48-1 66 Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 0.4 NE 80 NE Appendix I
96-12-8 67 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP 0.04 NE 0.2 NE Appendix I
106-93-4 68 1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB 0.02 NE 0.05 NE Appendix I
95-50-1 69 o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 20 NE 600 NE Appendix I
106-46-7 71 p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 6 NE 75 NE Appendix I
110-57-6 73 trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene NE NE NE NE Appendix I
75-34-3 75 1,1-Dichloroethane; Ethyldidene chloride 6 NE NE NE Appendix I
107-06-2 76 1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride 0.4 NE 5 NE Appendix I
75-35-4 77 1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene;350 NE 7 NE Appendix I
156-59-2 78 Dichloroethene 70 NE 70 NE Appendix I
156-60-5 79 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 NE 100 NE Appendix I
78-87-5 82 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.6 NE 5 NE Appendix I
10061-01-5 86 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.4 NE NE NE Appendix I
10061-02-6 87 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.4 NE NE NE Appendix I
100-41-4 110 Ethylbenzene 600 NE 700 NE Appendix I
591-78-6 124 2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone NE 40 NE NE Appendix I
7439-92-1 131 Lead 15 NE 15 NE Appendix I
74-83-9 136 Methyl bromide; Bromomethane NE 10 NE NE Appendix I
74-87-3 137 Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 3 NE NE NE Appendix I
74-95-3 139 Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane NE 70 NE NE Appendix I
75-09-2 140 Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane 5 NE 5 NE Appendix I
78-93-3 141 Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone 4000 NE NE NE Appendix I
74-88-4 142 Methyl iodide; Iodomethane NE NE NE NE Appendix I
108-10-1 147 4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone NE 100 NE NE Appendix I
7440-02-0 152 Nickel 100 NE NE NE Appendix I
7782-49-2 183 Selenium 20 NE 50 NE Appendix I
7440-22-4 184 Silver 20 NE NE NE Appendix I
100-42-5 186 Styrene 70 NE 100 NE Appendix I
630-20-6 190 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane NE 1 NE NE Appendix I
79-34-5 191 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.2 NE NE NE Appendix I
127-18-4 192 Perchloroethylene 0.7 NE 5 NE Appendix I
7440-28-0 194 Thallium NE 0.2 2 NE Appendix I
108-88-3 196 Toluene 600 NE 1000 NE Appendix I
71-55-6 200 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform 200 NE 200 NE Appendix I
79-01-6 201 Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene 3 NE 5 NE Appendix I
79-00-5 202 1,1,2-Trichloroethane NE 0.6 5 NE Appendix I
75-69-4 203 Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-11 2000 NE NE NE Appendix I
96-18-4 206 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.005 NE NE NE Appendix I
NC Solid Waste Section Environmental Monitoring
Groundwater Protection Compliance Standards - Constituents List
(updated October 15, 2018 - with corrections 12/3/2018)
All units are ug/L unless otherwise noted.
NE = Not Established
Groundwater Protection Standards 1
Page 1 of 6
NC Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
CAS RN 2 SWS ID 3 CHEMICAL NAME 2L 2L IMAC MCL
DEQ Calculated
GWP Std Reference List
4
Groundwater Protection Standards 1
7440-62-2 209 Vanadium NE 0.3 NE NE Appendix I
108-05-4 210 Vinyl acetate NE 88 NE NE Appendix I
75-01-4 211 Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene 0.03 NE 2 NE Appendix I
7440-66-6 213 Zinc 1000 NE NE NE Appendix I
1330-20-7 346 Xylene (total)500 NE 10000 NE Appendix I
83-32-9 1 Acenaphthene 80 NE NE NE Appendix II
208-96-8 2 Acenaphthylene 200 NE NE NE Appendix II
75-05-8 4 Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide NE NE NE NE Appendix II
98-86-2 5 Acetophenone NE 700 NE NE Appendix II
53-96-3 6 2-Acetylaminofluorene; 2-AAF NE NE NE NE Appendix II
107-02-8 7 Acrolein NE 4 NE NE Appendix II
309-00-2 9 Aldrin NE 0.002 NE NE Appendix II
107-05-1 10 Allyl chloride NE NE NE NE Appendix II
92-67-1 11 4-Aminobiphenyl NE NE NE NE Appendix II
120-12-7 12 Anthracene 2000 NE NE NE Appendix II
56-55-3 17 Benzo[a]anthracene; Benzanthracene 0.05 NE NE NE Appendix II
205-99-2 18 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.05 NE NE NE Appendix II
207-08-9 19 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.5 NE NE NE Appendix II
191-24-2 20 Benzo[ghi]perylene 200 NE NE NE Appendix II
50-32-8 21 Benzo[a]pyrene 0.005 NE 0.2 NE Appendix II
100-51-6 22 Benzyl alcohol NE 700 NE NE Appendix II
319-84-6 24 alpha-BHC NE 0.006 NE NE Appendix II
319-85-7 25 beta-BHC NE 0.02 NE NE Appendix II
319-86-8 26 delta-BHC NE NE NE 0.019 Appendix II
58-89-9 27 gamma-BHC; Lindane 0.03 NE 0.2 NE Appendix II
101-55-3 31 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether NE NE NE NE Appendix II
85-68-7 32 Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate 1000 NE NE NE Appendix II
84-74-2 33 Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 NE NE NE Appendix II
106-47-8 38 p-Chloroaniline NE NE NE NE Appendix II
510-15-6 40 Chlorobenzilate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
111-91-1 42 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane NE NE NE NE Appendix II
111-44-4 43 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether; Dichloroethyl ether NE NE NE 0.031 Appendix II
59-50-7 45 p-Chloro-m-cresol; 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol NE NE NE NE Appendix II
108-60-1 46 Dichlorodiisopropyl ether; DCIP NE NE NE NE Appendix II
91-58-7 47 2-Chloronaphthalene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
95-57-8 48 2-Chlorophenol 0.4 NE NE NE Appendix II
7005-72-3 49 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether NE NE NE NE Appendix II
126-99-8 50 Chloroprene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
218-01-9 52 Chrysene 5 NE NE NE Appendix II
95-48-7 56 o-Cresol; 2-Methylphenol NE 400 NE NE Appendix II
57-12-5 58 Cyanide 70 NE 200 NE Appendix II
94-75-7 59 2,4-D; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 70 NE 70 NE Appendix II
72-54-8 60 4,4'-DDD 0.1 NE NE NE Appendix II
72-55-9 61 4,4'-DDE NE NE NE NE Appendix II
50-29-3 62 4,4'-DDT 0.1 NE NE NE Appendix II
2303-16-4 63 Diallate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
53-70-3 64 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.005 NE NE NE Appendix II
132-64-9 65 Dibenzofuran NE 28 NE NE Appendix II
541-73-1 70 m-Dichlorobenzene; 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 200 NE NE NE Appendix II
91-94-1 72 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
75-71-8 74 Dichlorodifluoromethane; CFC 12 1000 NE NE NE Appendix II
120-83-2 80 2,4-Dichlorophenol NE 0.98 NE NE Appendix II
87-65-0 81 2,6-Dichlorophenol NE NE NE NE Appendix II
142-28-9 83 1,3-Dichloropropane; Trimethylene dichloride NE NE NE NE Appendix II
594-20-7 84 2,2-Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene chloride NE NE NE NE Appendix II
563-58-6 85 1,1-Dichloropropene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
60-57-1 88 Dieldrin 0.002 NE NE NE Appendix II
297-97-2 89 O,O-Diethyl O-2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate; Thionazin NE NE NE NE Appendix II
84-66-2 90 Diethyl phthalate 6000 NE NE NE Appendix II
60-51-5 91 Dimethoate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
60-11-7 92 p-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
57-97-6 93 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
Page 2 of 6
NC Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
CAS RN 2 SWS ID 3 CHEMICAL NAME 2L 2L IMAC MCL
DEQ Calculated
GWP Std Reference List
4
Groundwater Protection Standards 1
119-93-7 94 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
105-67-9 95 2,4-Dimethylphenol; m-Xylenol 100 NE NE NE Appendix II
131-11-3 96 Dimethyl phthalate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
99-65-0 97 m-Dinitrobenzene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
534-52-1 98 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol; 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol NE NE NE NE Appendix II
51-28-5 99 2,4-Dinitrophenol NE NE NE NE Appendix II
121-14-2 100 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NE 0.1 NE NE Appendix II
606-20-2 101 2,6-Dinitrotoluene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
88-85-7 102 Dinoseb; DNBP; 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol NE 7 7 NE Appendix II
122-39-4 103 Diphenylamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
298-04-4 104 Disulfoton 0.3 NE NE NE Appendix II
959-98-8 105 Endosulfan I 40 NE NE NE Appendix II
33213-65-9 106 Endosulfan II NE NE NE 42 Appendix II
1031-07-8 107 Endosulfan sulfate NE 40 NE NE Appendix II
72-20-8 108 Endrin 2 NE 2 NE Appendix II
7421-93-4 109 Endrin aldehyde 2 NE NE NE Appendix II
117-81-7 111 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 3 NE NE NE Appendix II
97-63-2 112 Ethyl methacrylate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
62-50-0 113 Ethyl methanesulfonate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
52-85-7 114 Famphur NE NE NE NE Appendix II
206-44-0 115 Fluoranthene 300 NE NE NE Appendix II
86-73-7 116 Fluorene 300 NE NE NE Appendix II
76-44-8 117 Heptachlor 0.008 NE 0.4 NE Appendix II
1024-57-3 118 Heptachlor epoxide 0.004 NE 0.2 NE Appendix II
118-74-1 119 Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 NE 1 NE Appendix II
87-68-3 120 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.4 NE NE NE Appendix II
77-47-4 121 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene NE NE 50 50 Appendix II
67-72-1 122 Hexachloroethane NE NE NE 2.5 Appendix II
1888-71-7 123 Hexachloropropene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
193-39-5 125 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.05 NE NE NE Appendix II
78-83-1 126 Isobutyl alcohol NE NE NE NE Appendix II
465-73-6 127 Isodrin NE NE NE NE Appendix II
78-59-1 128 Isophorone 40 NE NE NE Appendix II
120-58-1 129 Isosafrole NE NE NE NE Appendix II
143-50-0 130 Kepone NE NE NE NE Appendix II
7439-97-6 132 Mercury 1 NE 2 NE App. II / C&D
126-98-7 133 Methacrylonitrile NE NE NE NE Appendix II
91-80-5 134 Methapyrilene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
72-43-5 135 Methoxychlor 40 NE NE NE Appendix II
56-49-5 138 3-Methylcholanthrene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
80-62-6 143 Methyl methacrylate NE 25 NE NE Appendix II
66-27-3 144 Methyl methanesulfonate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
91-57-6 145 2-Methylnaphthalene 30 NE NE NE Appendix II
298-00-0 146 Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl NE NE NE NE Appendix II
91-20-3 148 Naphthalene 6 NE NE NE Appendix II
130-15-4 149 1,4-Naphthoquinone NE NE NE NE Appendix II
134-32-7 150 1-Naphthylamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
91-59-8 151 2-Naphthylamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
99-09-2 153 m-Nitroaniline; 3-Nitroaniline NE NE NE NE Appendix II
88-74-4 154 o-Nitroaniline; 2-Nitroaniline NE NE NE NE Appendix II
100-01-6 155 p-Nitroaniline; 4-Nitroaniline NE NE NE NE Appendix II
98-95-3 156 Nitrobenzene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
99-55-8 157 5-Nitro-o-toluidine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
88-75-5 158 o-Nitrophenol; 2-Nitrophenol NE NE NE NE Appendix II
100-02-7 159 p-Nitrophenol; 4-Nitrophenol NE NE NE NE Appendix II
55-18-5 160 N-Nitrosodiethylamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
62-75-9 161 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.0007 NE NE NE Appendix II
924-16-3 162 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
86-30-6 163 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
621-64-7 164 Di-n-propylnitrosamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
10595-95-6 165 N-Nitrosomethylethalamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
100-75-4 166 N-Nitrosopiperidine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
Page 3 of 6
NC Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
CAS RN 2 SWS ID 3 CHEMICAL NAME 2L 2L IMAC MCL
DEQ Calculated
GWP Std Reference List
4
Groundwater Protection Standards 1
930-55-2 167 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
117-84-0 168 Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 NE NE NE Appendix II
56-38-2 169 Parathion NE NE NE NE Appendix II
1336-36-3 170 Polychlorinated biphenyls; PCBs NE 0.09 0.5 NE Appendix II
608-93-5 171 Pentachlorobenzene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
82-68-8 172 Pentachloronitrobenzene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
87-86-5 173 Pentachlorophenol 0.3 NE 1 NE Appendix II
62-44-2 174 Phenacetin NE NE NE NE Appendix II
85-01-8 175 Phenanthrene 200 NE NE NE Appendix II
106-50-3 176 p-Phenylenediamine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
108-95-2 177 Phenol 30 NE NE NE Appendix II
298-02-2 178 Phorate 1 NE NE NE Appendix II
23950-58-5 179 Pronamide NE NE NE NE Appendix II
107-12-0 180 Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide NE NE NE NE Appendix II
129-00-0 181 Pyrene 200 NE NE NE Appendix II
94-59-7 182 Safrole NE NE NE NE Appendix II
93-72-1 185 Silvex; 2,4,5-TP 50 NE NE NE Appendix II
18496-25-8 187 Sulfide NE NE NE NE Appendix II
93-76-5 188 2,4,5-T; 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid NE NE NE NE Appendix II
95-94-3 189 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene NE 2 NE NE Appendix II
58-90-2 193 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 200 NE NE NE Appendix II
7440-31-5 195 Tin NE 2000 NE NE Appendix II
95-53-4 197 o-Toluidine NE NE NE NE Appendix II
8001-35-2 198 Toxaphene 0.03 NE 3 NE Appendix II
120-82-1 199 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 NE 70 NE Appendix II
95-95-4 204 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol NE 63 NE NE Appendix II
88-06-2 205 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol NE 4 NE NE Appendix II
126-68-1 207 O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothioate NE NE NE NE Appendix II
99-35-4 208 sym-Trinitrobenzene NE NE NE NE Appendix II
57-74-9 339 Chlordane 0.1 NE NE NE Appendix II
106-44-5 344 p-Cresol; 4-Methylphenol 40 NE NE NE Appendix II
108-39-4 345 m-Cresol; 3-Methylphenol 400 NE NE NE Appendix II
122-09-8 386 Benzeneethanamine, alpha,alpha-dimethyl NE NE NE NE Appendix II
1746-01-6 440 2,3,7,8-TCDD; 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 0.0002 ng/L NE 0.03 NE Appendix II
123-91-1 422 1,4-dioxane 3 NE NE NE ALL 5
SW301 301 Chloride 250000 NE NE NE C&D
SW311 311 Total Dissolved Solids 500000 NE NE NE C&D
14808-79-8 315 Sulfate 250000 NE NE NE C&D / Leachate
SW337 337 Alkalinity NE NE NE NE C&D
7439-89-6 340 Iron 300 NE NE NE C&D
7439-96-5 342 Manganese 50 NE NE NE C&D
109-99-9 441 Tetrahydrofuran NE NE NE NE C&D
SW316 316 Biological Oxygen Demand NE NE NE NE Leachate
SW317 317 Chemical Oxygen Demand NE NE NE NE Leachate
SW419 419 No2/No3 (nitrate & nitrite reported together)NE NE NE NE Leachate
SW437 437 Orthophosphate Phosphorus NE NE NE NE Leachate
SW321 321 pH (lab)7.0 NE NE NE Leachate
SW324 324 SpecCond (lab)NE NE NE NE Leachate
226-36-8 385 1,2,5,6-Dibenzacridine NE NE NE NE Other
122-66-7 394 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine NE NE NE NE Other
87-61-6 371 1-2-3-Trichlorobenzene NE NE NE NE Other
120-36-5 352 2-(2-4-dichlorophenoxy)propionic acid NE NE NE NE Other
94-82-6 350 2-4 DB NE NE NE NE Other
110-75-8 358 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether NE NE NE NE Other
109-06-8 390 2-Picoline NE NE NE NE Other
56-57-5 388 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide NE NE NE NE Other
64-19-7 416 Acetic Acid NE 5000 NE NE Other
62-53-3 381 Aniline NE NE NE NE Other
140-57-8 382 Aramite NE NE NE NE Other
12674-11-2 401 Aroclor 1016 NE NE NE NE Other
11104-28-2 402 Aroclor 1221 NE NE NE NE Other
11141-16-5 403 Aroclor 1232 NE NE NE NE Other
Page 4 of 6
NC Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
CAS RN 2 SWS ID 3 CHEMICAL NAME 2L 2L IMAC MCL
DEQ Calculated
GWP Std Reference List
4
Groundwater Protection Standards 1
53469-21-9 404 Aroclor 1242 NE NE NE NE Other
12672-29-6 405 Aroclor 1248 NE NE NE NE Other
11097-69-1 406 Aroclor 1254 NE NE NE NE Other
11096-82-5 407 Aroclor 1260 NE NE NE NE Other
92-87-5 383 Benzidine NE NE NE NE Other
7440-42-8 428 Boron 700 NE NE NE Other
SW347 347 Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)NE NE NE NE Other
101-84-8 423 biphenyl ether NE NE NE NE Other
108-86-1 360 Bromobenzene NE NE NE NE Other
SW418 418 Butyric Acid NE NE NE NE Other
7440-70-2 375 Calcium NE NE NE NE Other
SW413 413 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)NE NE NE NE Other
SW348 348 Carbonate (as CaCO3)NE NE NE NE Other
12789-03-6 400 Chlordane (constituents)NE NE NE NE Other
79-06-1 429 Acrylamide 0.008 NE NE NE Other
5103-71-9 379 Chlordane, alpha NE NE NE NE Other
5103-74-2 378 Chlordane, beta NE NE 2 NE Other
5566-34-7 399 Chlordane, gamma NE NE NE NE Other
75-99-0 355 Dalapon NE 200 200 NE Other
SW318 318 Depth To Water (ft)NE NE NE NE Other
1918-00-9 353 Dicamba NE NE NE NE Other
SW334 334 Ferrous Iron- Dissolved NE NE NE NE Other
SW427 427 Groundwater Elevation (feet)NE NE NE NE Other
SW319 319 Head (ft mean sea level)NE NE NE NE Other
70-30-4 387 Hexachlorophene NE NE NE NE Other
SW338 338 Hydrogen Sulfide NE NE NE NE Other
SW415 415 Lactic Acid NE NE NE NE Other
SW329 329 Landfill Gas NE NE NE NE Other
SW374 374 m-&p-Cresol (combined)NE NE NE NE Other
92-52-4 421 1,1-biphenyl 400 NE NE NE Other
SW359 359 m-&p-Xylene (combined)NE NE NE NE Other
1563-66-2 430 Carbofuran 40 NE 40 NE Other
107-21-1 424 ethylene glycol 10000 NE NE NE Other
142-82-5 432 Heptane 400 NE NE NE Other
7439-95-4 376 Magnesium NE NE NE NE Other
94-74-6 351 MCPA NE NE NE NE Other
76-13-1 398 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 200000 NE NE NE Other
93-65-2 354 Mecopop, MCPP NE NE NE NE Other
SW333 333 Methane- Dissolved NE NE NE NE Other
7439-98-7 397 Molybdenum NE NE NE NE Other
108-38-3 409 m-Xylene NE NE NE NE Other
SW426 426 N-nitrosodiphenylamine/diphenylamine NE NE NE NE Other
SW439 439 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine/Diphenylamine NE NE NE NE Other
65-85-0 395 Benzoic Acid 30000 NE NE NE Other
39638-32-9 384 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 0.03 NE NE NE Other
59-89-2 389 N-Nitrosomorpholine NE NE NE NE Other
SW309 309 Coliform (total)1 NE 5 NE Other
SW310 310 Color (color units)15 NE NE NE Other
SW336 336 Oxygen Reduction Potential (mV)NE NE NE NE Other
SW313 313 Foaming Agents 500 NE NE NE Other
SW314 314 Gross Alpha 15 NE NE NE Other
106-43-4 365 4-Chlorotoluene NE 24 NE NE Other
99-87-6 368 p-Cymene NE 25 NE NE Other
108-20-3 366 Isopropyl ether 70 NE NE NE Other
98-82-8 367 Isopropylbenzene 70 NE NE NE Other
76-01-7 380 Pentachloroethane NE NE NE NE Other
SW335 335 Manganese- Dissolved 50 NE NE NE Other
108-67-8 373 Mesitylene (1-3-5-trimethylbenzene)400 NE NE NE Other
7440-09-7 377 Potassium NE NE NE NE Other
1634-04-4 369 Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)20 NE NE NE Other
104-51-8 361 n-Butylbenzene 70 NE NE NE Other
SW417 417 Propionic Acid NE NE NE NE Other
Page 5 of 6
NC Solid Waste Section
Environmental Monitoring List
CAS RN 2 SWS ID 3 CHEMICAL NAME 2L 2L IMAC MCL
DEQ Calculated
GWP Std Reference List
4
Groundwater Protection Standards 1
106-42-3 410 p-Xylene NE NE NE NE Other
103-65-1 370 n-Propylbenzene 70 NE NE NE Other
95-49-8 364 o-Chlorotoluene 100 NE NE NE Other
110-86-1 391 Pyridine NE NE NE 7 Other
SW414 414 Pyruvic Acid NE NE NE NE Other
7440-23-5 322 Sodium NE NE NE 20000 Other
SW323 323 SpecCond (field)NE NE NE NE Other
SW307 307 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class C19 - C36 10000 NE NE NE Other
SW305 305 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class C5 - C8 400 NE NE NE Other
SW306 306 petroleum aliphatic carbon fraction class C9 - C18 700 NE NE NE Other
SW308 308 petroleum aromatics carbon fraction class C9 - C22 200 NE NE NE Other
SW320 320 pH (field)7.0 NE NE NE Other
95-63-6 372 Pseudocumene (1-2-4-trimethylbenzene)400 NE NE NE Other
3689-24-5 392 Sulfotep NE NE NE NE Other
SW325 325 Temp (oC)NE NE NE NE Other
135-98-8 362 sec-Butylbenzene 70 NE NE NE Other
SW328 328 Top Of Casing (ft mean sea level)NE NE NE NE Other
SW425 425 Total BHC 0.02 NE NE NE Other
SW436 436 Total Fatty Acids NE NE NE NE Other
E-10195 357 Total Organic Carbon NE NE NE NE Other
98-06-6 363 tert-Butylbenzene 70 NE NE NE Other
SW396 396 Total Organic Halides NE NE NE NE Other
SW343 343 Total Suspended Solids NE NE NE NE Other
SW411 411 Total Well Depth (ft)NE NE NE NE Other
SW330 330 Turbidity NE NE NE NE Other
5 ALL - 1,4-Dioxane sampling required for all MSW, C&D, & Industrial landfills (active and closed) per SWS Memo dated May 29, 2018.
Weblink for 40 CFR Part 258
APPENDIX I - Constituents for Detection Monitoring per 40 CFR Part 258 (7-1-2017 Edition)
APPENDIX II - List of Hazardous Inorganic & Organic Constituents per 40 CFR Part 258 (7-1-2017 Edition). Appendix II list includes all Appendix I constituents.
C&D - Additional monitored constituents required for Construction & Demolition landfills (CDLFs)
LEACHATE - Monitored constituents for leachate sampling as specified in permit conditions.
Other - Other constituents, field testing, field measurements, or miscellaneous data that may be required by the Section.
NOTE: GWPSs as listed are current as of October 15, 2018 and are subject to change. Refer to originating sources for any changes.
4 Constituents Reference Lists
3 SWS ID = Solid Waste Section ID. Unique ID assigned by the Section.
2 CAS RN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number. For listed contituents with no CAS, the SWS ID is used.
1 Groundwater Protection Standard (GWPS) - For compliance purposes, the applicable GWPS is the lower of the listed standards.
NC GWP Std (NC Groundwater Protected Standard) - Groundwater value calculated by NC DEQ for constituents with no established 2L standard. Values are calculated using
criteria 1 & 2 of the NC Groundwater standards and do not consider taste, odor, MCLs, MCLG, and secondary drinking water standards.
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) - National primary drinking water standards per Safe Drinking Water Act under 40 CFR Part 141
2L IMAC (Interim Maximum Allowable Concentrations) - Interim NC groundwater standards per 15A NCAC 02L .0202
2L - NC groundwater water standards per 15A NCAC 02L .0202
GW Protection Standards References
Page 6 of 6

ATTACHMENT 1 
Monitoring Location Map (Drawing M1) 

ATTACHMENT 2 
Monitoring Well Construction Logs 

S C S E N G I N E E R S Test Boring Log MW-6
Environmental Consultants Northing 816,499.93
2520 Whitehall Park Drive, Suite 450 Easting 1,748,826.85
Charlotte, NC 28273 Logged By: Kelly Grant, Driller
704 504-3107 FAX [phone] Total Bore Depth: 45' below ground surface
Drilling Company: American Environmental Drilling, Inc.Date Started: 4/2/2015 Completion Water Level: 38' below top of casing
Drilling Method:Rotary Hollow Stem Auger Date Ended:4/2/2015 24 Hour Water Level:39'below top of casing
Boring Diameter:7.5-inch O.D.
Boring terminated at 45.0 feet WATER LEVEL23
13
14
15
3 SAMPLE # DEPTH IN FT. 6" SPT VALUE 6" SPT VALUE 6" SPT VALUESTRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
2
4
5
6
7
8
0
1 DEPTH, FT.ELEVATION755.89
16
19
20
21
22
9
10
11
12
50
43
44
45
46
47
48
37
38
39
40
41
42
49
31
32
33
34
35
36
25
26
27
28
29
30
24
17
18
A-1 Sandrock CDLF and Recycling
Greensboro, NC (Permit # 41-17)
708.1
753.1 Ground Elev.
Casing Elev.
Grout
Solid 2" PVC Pipe
Bentonite
Slotted 2" PVC Pipe
Sand Pack
731.1
722.1
Stiff tan-brown sandy clay
Hard brown sandy clay
Dense white-orange rocky soil w/ quartz
Wet from 38 to 45 feet
Hard gray sandy clay (PWR)
SCS Project No. 02214704.00
PIEZOMETER DATA
741.1
ATTACHMENT 3 
Monitoring Well Schematics (Type 2 and Type 3) 
APPENDIX 6
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 1

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Solid Waste Permit #41-17)
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan
December 20, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Documents Incorporated by Reference ........................................................................................................ 2 
Revisions ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 
Certification................................................................................................................................................... 2 
1.0  REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................... 3 
1.1  Background ................................................................................................................................... 3 
1.2   Monitoring Location Criteria ......................................................................................................... 3 
1.3   Thresholds Requiring a Response ................................................................................................. 4 
1.4   Rationale for LFG Sampling Locations ........................................................................................... 4 
2.0  LFG Monitoring Program ........................................................................................................................ 5 
2.1   Sampling Logistics ......................................................................................................................... 5 
2.2   Structures and Ambient Sampling ................................................................................................ 5 
2.3   Sampling Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 6 
2.4  Modifications and Revisions 6 
3.0  General Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 6 
3.1   Equipment and Calibration ........................................................................................................... 6 
3.2   Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................................... 7 
4.0  Record Keeping and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 7 
5.0  Contingency Plan .................................................................................................................................... 8 

ATTACHMENTS 
1 LFG Monitoring Well Locations (Drawing M1 )
2 LFG Monitoring Well Construction Schematic
3 LFG Monitoring Well Construction Data (FUTURE)
4 LFG Monitoring Data Form 

A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 2

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE*
1 “Landfill Gas Monitoring Guidance,” November 2010, North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section

*available online at http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=da699f7e-8c13-
4249-9012-16af8aefdc7b&groupId=38361

REVISIONS
0 A-1 Sandrock CDLF Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan, ca. 2009
1.1 Amendment to support Phase 2, May 2015
2 Amendment to support Phase 3 PTC (Added LFG wells)

Upon approval by NC DENR-Division of Waste Management, this plan will supersede all
previous versions for LFG monitoring at the CDLF.

CERTIFICATION
The landfill gas monitoring plan for this facility has been prepared by a qualified geologist or
engineer who is licensed to practice in the State of North Carolina. The plan has been prepared
based on first-hand knowledge of site conditions and familiarity with North Carolina solid waste
rules and industry standard protocol. This certification is made in accordance with North Carolina
Solid Waste Regulations, indicating this Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan should provide early
detection of any release of hazardous constituents to the uppermost aquifer, so as to be protective
of public health and the environment. No other warranties, expressed or implied, are made.

Signed _______________
Printed G. David Garrett
Date December 20, 2018

Not valid unless this document bears the seal of the above-named licensed professional.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 3

1.0  REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 
1.1  Background 
Monitoring of landfill gas (LFG) is required at C&D landfills by Solid Waste Rule 15A NCAC 13B
.0544. Landfill gas is a by-product from the decomposition of organic waste in a sanitary landfill,
including certain C&D wastes. Landfill gas typically comprises about 50 percent methane, which
can be explosive under certain conditions, as well as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and small
amounts of hydrogen sulfide. LFG has been known to promote the migration of contaminants
into ground water.

The Solid Waste Rules typically focus on the explosive properties from a public safety standpoint.
Landfill gas migrates in soil above the ground water table and is restricted laterally by streams.
Highly porous soils that tend to occur near the soil-rock interface within the Piedmont are good
pathways for gas migration. Pipelines and other utility trenches can serve as pathways for gas
migration, with the potential to convey gas for considerable distances. Open landfills are not as
likely to experience subsurface gas migration, but once a low permeability cover is installed,
lateral migration into adjacent soils may be more likely if gas is present.

Experience suggests that up-gradient areas should be targeted for monitoring, especially if porous
soils are present. In addition, this zone typically is an aquifer, thus fluctuations in the water table
will affect the gas migration pattern or rate, as does surface saturation, frozen soils, and variation
in barometric pressure. The Guidance suggests that the ideal time to sample for subsurface gas
is during times of low barometric pressure.

1.2   Monitoring Location Criteria 
The Facility is situated high on a ridge bounded on three sides by blue line streams, which act as
natural barriers to gas migration. Groundwater generally follows the surface topography, which
slopes moderately to the west but diverges sharply to the north and south (toward the streams)
near the margins of the disposal area. Topographic relief near the streams is moderately steep
to very steep, with elevation changes from the footprint to the streams on the order of 10 to 20
feet on the south side and 20 to 30 feet on the north and west sides. The landfill is unlined and
has been excavated into the ridge.

Onsite soils are porous, weathered granite that extends 20 to 50 feet beneath the original surface.
The water table is approximately 25 to 40 feet deep over most of the site, except near the streams
where water levels are 8 to 10 feet deep. The approved base grades are 8 to 12 feet above the
level of the streams and a minimum of 4 feet above groundwater and/or bedrock. Lateral
separation to the streams is 50 feet minimum. Such dimensions provide little opportunity for gas
to migrate beyond the facility boundary on the three sides bound by streams.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 4

On the upgradient (southeast) side the original topography increased by approximately 14 feet
between the approved footprint and the nearest occupied structures, located approximately 750
feet from the approved disposal footprint. Earlier site data indicates the soils on this side of the
site are generally finer grained (less permeable), and the landfill is mostly above-ground on the
east side at this stage of development. Recent off-site grading activities has removed
approximately 15 feet of soil east of the Facility boundary.

To the north, pipelines are present that could serve as potential conduits for off-site landfill gas
migration – the nearest pipeline (sewer line) is a target for gas monitoring – although the pipelines
are located along (and mostly across) a deeply incised stream. The facility offices are also located
across the stream, approximately 550 feet from the waste boundary. No occupied structures
appear to be at risk for gas migration near this facility. The “upgradient” side of the CDLF, i.e.,
the southeast side, and the pipeline corridor immediately north of the CDLF footprint are the
primary targets for monitoring landfill gas at this Facility.

1.3   Thresholds Requiring a Response 
Thresholds that trigger responsive action are methane levels of 100 percent of the lower explosive
limit (LEL), about 5 percent by volume in soil-gas or air at the facility boundary; 25 percent of the
LEL within onsite structures, not limited to just buildings but inclusive of drainage structures and
utility vaults; anything above zero in off-site structures. The contingency plan (Section 5) contains
a summary of action required if a regulatory threshold is exceeded. Solid Waste Section (SWS)
guidance requires that LFG be monitored with a calibrated meter that can detect hydrogen sulfide
(H2S), whereas the action limits are 4% by volume at 100% LEL (methane), and 1% by volume at
25% LEL (methane).

1.4   Rationale for LFG Sampling Locations 
Twelve LFG monitoring points are located around the CDLF footprint as shown in Drawing M1
(Attachment 1). Locations LFG-1, LFG-2 and LFG-12 are located on the upgradient side of the
unlined landfill, opposite of ground water flow (refer to Section 1.1). Locations LFG-3 through
LFG-6 are strategically located relative to the sanitary sewer pipeline corridor, albeit the
topography of these locations and the water table make it unlikely that landfill gas would migrate
in those directions (at least not very far). Location LFG-7 is so-located to provide uniform spacing,
with the unlikelihood of any soil-gas migrating more than 50 feet from the landfill perimeter.

Of interest, a small H2S seep was observed at the far northwest corner of Phase 1, evidenced by
the browning of vegetation and the characteristic “rotten egg” odor that persisted for a few weeks
in 2013. The gas seep area was mitigated by digging out the temporary soil cover and some of
the underlying waste, in what amounted to two test pits, which were left open to vent for 2 to 3
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 5

weeks prior to replacing the excavated materials and enhancing the thickness of the interim soil
cover. No trace of the gas seep has been observed since.

The Operator is alert to observing that spot for further indications of LFG migration. It is known
that sheetrock debris had been concentrated in that area. Continued reaction between the
sheetrock and water is unlikely now that the interim soil cover is functional. In response to this
event, a new sampling location, LFG-8, was added to the northwest corner (Drawing M1). The
sampling location is within 50 feet of the waste boundary, as are the other sampling locations.
Locations LFG-9 through LFG 11 have been activated incrementally as CDLF phases opened.

2.0  LFG MONITORING PROGRAM 
2.1   Sampling Logistics 
Historic LFG monitoring for this facility consisted of sampling soil-gas adjacent to the landfill
footprint via bar-hole punch test, at locations approximately 500 feet apart (see Drawing M1).
The SWS recently enacted a policy change that disallowed the use of the bar-hole punch test at
landfills. The reasoning behind the use of that method when it was approved in 2009 stemmed
from the newness of the Facility. Due to the present volume and age of the wastes, it is likely that
reactions leading to the production of landfill gas are becoming more active.

Heretofore, LFG monitoring will be accomplished via monitoring wells constructed in accordance
with a schematic (see Attachment 2), which includes sealed construction and a specialized port
at the top to facilitate sampling. The monitoring wells will be located near the same points as
currently monitored with the bar-hole punch tests, for the same reasoning described above.
Installation of the LFG wells shall be overseen by a licensed geologist or engineer.

This plan will be amended to include monitoring well construction data table (Attachment 3).
Sampling and data recording protocols will remain the same – see Section 3. All monitoring data
shall be recorded on a LFG Monitoring Data Form (Attachment 4) and archived in the Operating
Record. Note, the requirements in this section are consistent with earlier versions.

2.2   Structures and Ambient Sampling 
Within the offices and any future buildings on-site, atmospheric sampling for methane shall be
conducted. Methane is heavier than air and tends to accumulate in the lower zones with restricted
circulations, i.e., crawlspaces, closets, and corners of rooms near the floor, cracks in walls, floor
slabs, or foundations, crawlspace vents, drainage pipes, utility vaults and sanitary sewer
manholes. Methane detection in and around the structures, though unlikely, would signify a
problem such that the site manager should be notified – immediate action may be required – refer
to the Contingency Plan (Section 5).
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 6

Ambient monitoring consists of a “walk-around” of building foundations and along the toe of slopes
(at road level) to survey for gas that may be seeping through the cover. A key to potential side
slope seepage includes stained soil, wetness with visible bubbling, and distressed (or absent)
vegetation. Any detection of methane in the ambient monitoring should be noted on a site map
and a special notation recorded in the monitoring report. Follow up sampling or close attention in
future sampling events might be warranted. The site manager should be alerted to any ambient
gas detection, whereas a response may be required. Note, the requirements in this section are
consistent with earlier versions.

2.3   Sampling Schedule 
Landfill gas monitoring will be performed during the active life of the landfill, estimated at 20 years,
and throughout the post-closure care period, i.e., 30 years unless future data warrant a schedule
revision, subject to approval by the SWS. The Facility is planning to install the permanent LFG
monitoring wells during the first quarter of 2019, in conjunction with the opening of Phase 3.

Quarterly monitoring shall be conducted at the LFG monitoring wells, all occupied structures
located on the landfill property, and the “walkaround” monitoring. Though not subject to periodic
monitoring requirements, as a precaution any enclosed structures, such as manholes, utility
vaults, crawl spaces and buried drainage pipes should be checked for gas prior to servicing.
Future passive gas vents for the final cover, when installed, are not required to be monitored.

Monitoring times are important when conducting landfill gas monitoring. Proper landfill gas
monitoring should include sampling during times when landfill gas is most likely to migrate. LFG
monitoring should be conducted when the barometric pressure is low, and soils are saturated.
Landfill gas monitoring is not recommended when the ground is frozen. Note, the requirements
in this section are consistent with earlier versions.

2.4  Modifications and Revisions 
At a future time, it may be appropriate to modify this plan, e.g. add or delete sampling locations
or analytical parameters. Such changes require advance approval from the SWS. Also, this plan
will be reviewed periodically and amended as needed. Users of this plan are advised to check
the revision section for the latest edition.

3.0   GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 
3.1   Equipment and Calibration 
A landfill gas meter that meets the requirements of SWS Landfill Gas Monitoring Guidance with
respect to detecting methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide shall be utilized.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 7

Calibration of the meter shall be performed according to the manufacturer’s specifications.
Should this element of the program change, this plan will be amended accordingly.

3.2   Sampling Procedures 
The procedures outlined in the Guidance document (Reference 1) shall be followed. A brief
overview of the program follows.

Step 1 Calibrate the instrument according to the manufacturer’s specifications. In addition,
prepare the instrument for monitoring by allowing it to properly warm up as directed by
the manufacturer. Make sure the static pressure shows a reading of zero on the
instrument prior to taking the first sample.

Step 2 At the LFG monitoring well, purge the sample tube for at least one minute prior to
taking reading. Typically, this is accomplished with a mechanical pump, often
incorporated into the meter. Connect the meter tubing to the landfill gas monitoring
well cap via a preinstalled stopcock valve or quick connect coupling.

Step 3 Open the valve and record the initial reading and the stabilized reading for methane.
A stable reading is one that does not vary more than 0.5 percent by volume on the
instrument’s scale in real time.

Step 4 Record the stabilized readings for the other gases, including the oxygen, and the
barometric pressure. A proper reading should have two percent oxygen by volume or
less. If levels of oxygen are higher, it may indicate that air is being drawn into the
system. This can cause a false reading on the balance of all the gases.

Step 5 Turn the stopcock valve to the off position and disconnect the tubing.

Step 6 Proceed to the next landfill gas monitoring well and repeat Steps 2 – 5.

4.0   RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING 
The sampling technician shall record the date, time, location, sampling personnel, calibration
data, gas pump rate, barometric pressure (from local weather reports), ambient temperature,
general weather conditions at the time of sampling, initial and stabilized concentrations of
methane, on the Landfill Gas Monitoring Data Form following this text. These monitoring
records shall be maintained in the landfill operating record. Should methane be detected at any
sampling location, the facility manager should be notified and, depending on the concentrations,
a report to the Solid Waste Section might be warranted. In any event a qualified engineer should
be consulted.
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF (Permit #41-17) Rev. 2 12/20/2018
Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan Page 8

5.0   CONTINGENCY PLAN 
Solid Waste Rule .0544 (d) (3) requires the following responses if methane and/or hydrogen
sulfide concentrations are detected above the regulatory limits:

A Immediately take all steps necessary to ensure protection of human health and safety,
then notify the Division. If occupied structures are affected, the primary response
should be evacuation and ventilation until the methane concentrations subside; it may
be prudent to contact the local fire department; close monitoring of structures shall be
implemented; for facility boundary violations, further evaluation is warranted, subject
to notification and approval by the Division.

B Within seven days of detection, place in the operating record the methane or explosive
gas levels and a description of the steps taken to protect human health;

C Within 60 days of detection, implement a remediation plan for the methane or
explosive gas releases, place a copy of the plan in the operating record, and notify the
Division that the plan has been implemented. The plan must describe the nature and
extent of the problem and the proposed remedy.

D Based on the need for an extension demonstrated by the operator, the Division may
establish alternative schedules for demonstrating compliance with the limits.

E "Lower explosive limit" means the lowest percent by volume of a mixture of explosive
gases in air that will propagate a flame at 25o C, at atmospheric pressure.

F Upon completion of mitigation activities, a thorough report shall be placed in the
operating record to document the incident and outcome.

ATTACHMENT 1 
Monitoring Location Map (Drawing M1) 

ATTACHMENT 2 
LFG Monitoring Well Construction Schematic 

ATTACHMENT 3 
LFG Monitoring Well Data (Future) 

ATTACHMENT 4 
LFG Monitoring Data Form 

NC Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Section
Landfill Gas Monitoring Data Form
Notice: This form and any information attached to it are "Public Records" as defined in NC General Statute 132-1. As such,
these documents are available for inspection and examination by any person upon request (NC General Statute 132-6).
Facility Name: Permit Number:
Date of Sampling: NC Landfill Rule (.0500 or .1600):
Name and Position of Sample Collector:
Type and Serial Number of Gas Meter: Calibration Date of Gas Meter:
Date and Time of Field Calibration:
Type of Field Calibration Gas (15/15 or 35/50): Expiration Date of Field Calibration Gas Canister:
Pump Rate of Gas Meter:
Ambient Air Temperature: Barometric Pressure: General Weather Conditions:
Instructions: Under “Location or LFG Well” identify the monitoring wells or describe the location for other tests (e.g., inside
buildings). A drawing showing the location of test must be attached. Report methane readings as both % LEL and % CH4 by
volume. A reading in percent methane by volume can be converted to % LEL as follows: % methane by volume = % LEL/20

Location
or LFG
Well ID
Sample
Tube
Purge
Time
Time
Pumped
(sec)
Initial
%LEL
Stabilized
%LEL
%CH4 by
volume %O2 %CO2 %H2S Notes

If your facility has more gas monitoring locations than there is room on this form, please attach additional sheets listing the
same information as contained on this form.
Certification
To the best of my knowledge, the information reported and statements made on this data submittal and attachments
are true and correct. I am aware that there are significant penalties for making any false statement, representation, or
certification including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.
SIGNATURE TITLE
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page i
Appendix 7
Design Hydrogeologic Report
CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page ii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION ......................................................................... 2
1.1 Map and Literature Review .................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Geologic and Topo Maps ......................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Fracture Trace Analysis ........................................................................... 4
1.1.3 Topographic Setting and Drainage .......................................................... 5
1.1.3 Other Pertinent Features .......................................................................... 5
1.2 Field Reconnaissance .............................................................................................. 6
1.2.1 Bedrock characteristics ............................................................................ 6
1.2.2 Rock Depths ............................................................................................. 6
1.2.3 Springs, Seeps and Ground Water Discharge Features ........................... 7
1.3 Test Borings/Piezometers ....................................................................................... 7
1.4 Laboratory and Field Testing ................................................................................. 8
1.4.1 Laboratory Analysis ................................................................................. 8
1.4.2 Formation Descriptions ............................................................................ 8
1.4.3 Field Hydrologic Testing ......................................................................... 9
1.4.4 Hydrogeologic Units .............................................................................. 10
1.4.5 Dispersivity Characteristics ................................................................... 10
1.5 Other Investigative Tools ...................................................................................... 13
1.6 Stratigraphic Cross Sections ................................................................................. 13
1.7 Water Table Information....................................................................................... 14
1.7.1 Short-Term Water Levels ...................................................................... 14
1.7.2 Long-Term Water Levels ...................................................................... 14
1.7.3 Estimated Seasonal High Water ............................................................ 17
1.7.4 Factors That Influence the Water Table ................................................. 17
1.8 Horizontal and Vertical Flow Dimensions ........................................................... 18
1.9 Ground Water Contour Maps................................................................................ 19
1.10 Local Well and Water Use Information ................................................................ 19
1.11 Special Geologic Considerations .......................................................................... 20
1.12 Summary Report ................................................................................................... 20
2.0 DESIGN HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT .................................................................... 21
2.1 Ground Water Monitoring System Design Info .................................................... 21
2.1.1 Uppermost Aquifer Characteristics........................................................ 21
2.1.2 Relative Point of Compliance ................................................................ 21
2.1.3 Monitoring Plan Amendments ............................................................... 21
2.2 Rock Core Information ......................................................................................... 22
2.3 Estimated Long-Term Seasonal High Water Table .............................................. 22
2.4 Bedrock Contour Map........................................................................................... 22
2.5 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections .............................................................................. 22
2.6 Ground Water Flow Regime ................................................................................. 23
2.7 On-site Soils Report .............................................................................................. 23
2.8 Certification .......................................................................................................... 23
CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page iii
TABLES Refer to the tabbed section that follows this text
1 Test Boring/Piezometer Data
2 Geotechnical Laboratory Data
3 Hydrogeologic Properties
4 Short-Term Ground Water Observations
5 Historic Ground Water Levels and Hydrograph (Monitoring Wells)
6 Horizontal Ground Water Gradient and Velocity Calculations

FIGURES In-text
1 Excerpt from Charlotte 1 degree by 2 degrees Quadrangle (1985) .........................2
2 General Vicinity Map (2000-foot radius) ................................................................3
3 Guilford County Aerial Photo (2013) ......................................................................5
4 PHDI for NC Northern Piedmont (1995-2015) .....................................................20
5 PHDI for NC Northern Piedmont (1895-2015) .....................................................21
6 Monitoring Well Hydrograph (2006-2014) ...........................................................22

DRAWINGS Refer to tabbed section
Drawing Name
S1 Facility Plan
S2 Initial Conditions with Test Locations
S3 Final Grades with Ground Water Contours
S4 Final Grades with Bedrock Contours
X1 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections E-E’
X2 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections G-G’
M1 Water and Gas Monitoring Locations

CONTENTS
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page iv
ATTACHMENTS
A Data Tables
B Test Boring Records
C Field Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
D Fracture Trace Analysis
E Geotechnical Laboratory Data
INTRODUCTION
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 1
A-1 Sandrock, Inc., owns and operates a Construction and Demolition debris landfill
(CDLF), located at 2091 Bishop Road, near Greensboro, North Carolina, in southeastern
Guilford County. The Owner is seeking a Permit to Construct (PTC) and Permit to
Operate (PTO) for Phase 3. This document presents a Design Hydrogeologic Study
prepared in accordance with Solid Waste Rules 15A NCAC 13B .0538, with updates to
the facility monitoring plan in accordance with Rule 15A NCAC 13B .0544.
The landfill began operation in 2009 as the reclamation program for an open pit mine
(essentially a large borrow pit). The initial Site Suitability Study was performed in 2002,
and mining commenced using solid waste buffer criteria ca. 2003. The permitted facility
boundary encompasses approximately 75 acres, whereas the footprint is divided into
three contiguous phases covering approximately 25.5 acres. Phase 1 straddled a geologic
boundary between hard diorite bedrock to the east and deeply weathered granite
(“sandrock”) to the west, near a north-south oriented diabase dike.
Excavation to design base grades in Phase 1 encountered a few rock outliers that required
“padding” with soil to provide the required 4 feet of separation. The diabase dike
generally proved to be easier to excavate than was indicated by the “auger refusal”
conditions mapped in the Site Suitability investigation. The upper 20-30 feet of diabase
in Phase 1C consisted of variable size cobbles and boulders nested in a matrix of clayey
soil. A variable rock surface was suspected during the earlier studies, thus a second
investigation with test pits was performed to confirm the vertical separation, albeit some
of the grades were adjusted up or down as conditions dictated.
Similar excavation conditions were encountered in Phase 2, whereas the eastern portions
of the cells encountered the diabase dike, but in the western portions ground water
separation became the controlling factor. Test pits in Phase 2 confirmed sufficient
separation to bedrock and ground water upon completion of the grading. As-built
surveys of all completed base grades were performed. A tally of lost or gained airspace
was kept in Phases 1 and 2. These conditions may extend to Phase 3.
Test boring information indicates ground water separation will be the controlling factor in
the south end of Phase 3, and bedrock separation will control the grading in the central
and north end of Phase 3. The hydrogeologic information collected in Phase 3 meets the
Solid Waste Section’s requirements for data density, i.e., one boring per acre, but
experience with variable conditions in the rest of the site suggests the supplemental test
pits at the time of construction and adjustment of base grades will be appropriate for
Phase 3.
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 2
1.1 Map and Literature Review

1.1.1 Geologic and Topo Maps – The site is located in the Piedmont physiographic
province. Published geologic mapping 1 places the site in the Charlotte Belt, underlain by
metamorphosed igneous plutonic rocks, typically consisting of Precambrian granite and
grano-diorite (€Zg) and early Paleozoic intermediate-mafic units, diorite-gabbro (PZzg).
These rock units have been altered and jointed during multiple thermo-tectonic events.
Localized shearing is evidenced by slickensides and small-scale displacements along
joint surfaces. Both units are present on the site but too small to distinguish in Figure 1.
Two principle rock types identified on-site include 1) diorite, characterized as very hard,
fine-grained, greenish-gray rock comprising olivine-hornblende-plagioclase minerals
with accessory chlorite and occasional pyrite; and 2) granite, characterized as moderately
hard, coarse-grained, porphyritic, white and black rock consisting chiefly of plagioclase-
quartz-biotite with minor potassic feldspar. Both units exhibit high angle jointing spaced
6 to 12 inches apart. Both units exhibit occasional aplite veins, and the granite exhibits
quartz “stringers,” suggesting some degree of secondary mineralization. Historic gold
mines existed within two miles to the northeast and southwest directions.2

Figure 1 – Excerpt from the North Carolina Geologic Map (1985)

1 North Carolina Geologic Survey at http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us

2 Mineral production reported in various Economic Reports, ca. 1900, found in the NCGS archives.
A-1 Sandrock
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 3
A third significant rock unit, a diabase dike of Triassic-Jurassic age (Jd), was observed
along a north-south lineament, just west of the apparent granite-diorite contact. This unit
is large enough to be mapped on the regional geologic map but not the state map. The
“baked zone” appeared to be approximately 30 to 50 feet wide, but later exposure shows
the dike to be approximately 10 feet wide. The upper surface of the diabase is weathered
and contains “nests” of hard, rounded, black boulders and cobbles, embedded in a matrix
of dark orange, plastic, silty clay. Diabase dikes have generated a lot of interest for solid
waste site monitoring. Based on historic data, the diabase is not a significant factor here.
Other mafic rock units were observed as small, disconnected pods, called “xenoliths,” of
moderately hard, green-gray, foliated gneiss, generally too fine-grained for positive
visual mineral identification. Such occurrences are common throughout the region and
are believed to represent either old, post-depositional dikes within the granite (not to be
confused with the much younger diabase) or diorite inclusions that were assimilated into
the granite, now obscured by later thermo-tectonic events. These relatively small rock
bodies are too small and isolated to map as individual units, thus they are believed to
have no significance for water quality monitoring.
Figure 2 – USGS Pleasant Garden 7.5 minute series topographic quadrangle3
Surface topography serves as a guide to the direction of groundwater flow and influences
hydraulic gradients. The variable topography observed at the site and throughout the
region (Figure 2) is largely a manifestation of differential weathering of the bedrock,
3 http://nationalmap.gov/ustopo
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 4
resulting from varying composition (chiefly quartz vs. mica content), upturned foliation,
and regional jointing (brittle shear structures) as key factors. Test borings reveal the
differential weathering through variations in auger refusal depths and soil composition,
yet the soils at the site are relatively deep (typically exceeding 30 feet). Ground water is
also relatively deep within the higher elevations and shallower in the lower elevations.
1.1.2 Fracture Trace Analysis – Generalized bedrock fracture trends for a 2-mile
study area were acquired during the Site Suitability study by tracing stream alignments
on the topo map. The alignment lengths were tallied and grouped according to compass
orientation, and a Cumulative Length diagram was presented as a rosette diagram in
Attachment D, to show the statistical trends for the length and orientation of major
fracture systems. USGS mapped perennial streams were targeted since they represent the
predominant regional fracture pattern with minimal background clutter introduced by
counting all the drainage features.
Some of the major fracture systems can be traced in the on-site bedrock through outcrop
measurements (strike and dip of bedding and jointing), but bedrock exposures at the site
are infrequent and highly weathered. The topographic orientations described below are
given in coordinates and azimuth directions. Six major orientation groups were identified
in the fracture trace analysis. Groupings used here represent 20 degrees of azimuth.
1 N0° to N20°E (Az. 000 to 020) North-south orientation of several larger stream runs,
including Hickory Creek, which is believed to represent a significant regional tensional
event, akin to the diabase dike intrusion.
2 S84°W to N84°W (Az. 264 to 276) East-west orientation of both unnamed tributaries to
Hickory Creek occurring on the site. This is the principal ground water flow direction at
the site, based on the potentiometric surface map.
3 N56°W to N49°W (Az. 284 to 311) Northwest orientation of streams leading toward the
site from up-gradient areas. Together with Group #4, comprises the predominant fracture
pattern in the study area, based on cumulative length of drainage features.
4 N48°W to N48°W (Az. 312 to 338) Northwest orientation of streams leading directly
onto the site from up-gradient areas.
5 N045°E to N059°E (Az. 045 to 059) Coincides with the regional NE-SE trend. Together
with Group #6, comprises the second-most predominant fracture pattern in the study area,
based on cumulative length of drainage features at these orientations. Smaller streams
located to the north of the “north” unnamed tributary follow this orientation.
6 N060°E to N073°E (Az. 060 to 073) No drainage features on-site at these orientations,
but includes a long run of Hickory Creek south of the site.
Based on the fracture trace analysis, regional ground water flow near the site is directed
west toward Hickory Creek, following the trend of Group #2. The potentiometric surface
map indicates likely flow directions to the northwest and southwest, divided along an axis
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 5
located near the middle of the site that reflects surface topography. A possible flow
orientation occurs along the north-south orientation of the diabase dike (Group #1), but
this, too, leads to a ground water interceptor stream.
1.1.3 Topographic Setting and Drainage – USGS topographic mapping (Figure 2)
shows the site situated along the west side of a dissected ridge. Topography consists of a
broad, dissected ridge, bordered on three sides by streams. Hickory Creek borders the
site to the west. Two unnamed “blue-line” tributaries flow west to Hickory Creek and
converge within the site boundary. Drainage is generally northwest, west and southwest.
Ground surfaces vary from El. 730 along Hickory Creek to El. 806 near the center and El.
812 at the east facility line. All drainage eventually flows to the Deep River via Hickory
Creek, making the site subject to the Randleman Reservoir Watershed buffer rules.
1.1.4 Other Pertinent Features
The unnamed tributaries form
deep, steeply sloping valleys
that separate the disposal area
from its surroundings. A 100-
year floodplain is delineated
along Hickory Creek. These
features restrict access and
provide visual screening, as
well as limiting ground water
and potential subsurface gas
movement within predictable
limits. Other site features that
could influence the monitoring
are two easements north of the
disposal area, including a cross-
country petroleum pipeline
(Colonial Pipeline) and a
sanitary sewer outfall, shown in
aerial photography (Figure 3).
Figure 3 – 2013 Photo http://gis.co.guilford.nc.us/Guilfordjs/
Colonial Pipeline
Sanitary Sewer
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 6
1.2 Field Reconnaissance
1.2.1 Bedrock Characteristics – Typical of the Piedmont region, near-surface soils are
characterized as saprolite, weathered from the underlying bedrock (saprolite), either
diorite or granite on this site, and exhibits a relict texture and mineralogy derived from
the parent bedrock. Stratigraphy is based more on the in-situ weathering pattern of the
underlying bedrock than actual depositional units. Earlier test borings indicate standard
penetration test (SPT) values vary spatially due to localized density variations and the
degree of saturation. The on-site soils exhibit SPT values typically exceeding 20 blows
per foot and varying with increasing depth to values exceeding 100 blows per foot.
These densest soils, known locally as “partially weathered rock,” can be penetrated by
power-driven hollow stem augers but transition to bedrock, defined by “auger refusal.”
Several borings were cored or advanced into the bedrock with rotary-air drilling methods.
Based on the test boring data, the top of rock exhibits a differential weathering pattern,
typical of a transitional boundary between the saprolite and bedrock. Additional test
borings were performed for Phase 3, to provide sufficient coverage (one per acre)
throughout the footprint. The earlier studies that supported the permitting of previous
phases, and numerous site visits made during the excavation of Phases 1 and 2, afford a
thorough understanding of soils, rock and ground water conditions likely to be
encountered in Phase 3. Drawing S2 shows the layout of the investigation.
Within Phase 3, the top layer of soil generally consists of silty and sandy clays, found
from 0 to 5 feet below the surface. These soils range from medium stiff to stiff, and are
tan, brown, and red in color. The soil layer below sandy silt and silty sand, extending to
depths of 5 to 25 feet below the surface. These soils are stiff to hard, gray-orange-tan
(occasionally greenish-gray) in color. These soils are variably moist and often exhibit
mottling due to past moisture fluctuations, in addition to occasional dark brown iron-
manganese staining along joint surfaces.
1.2.2 Rock Depths – Generalized bedrock contours established in 2002 are based on
test boring data and available outcrops, shown in Drawing S4. The mapped bedrock
surface is based on “auger refusal” depths encountered at the test borings, in keeping with
NCDEQ policy. The rock surface generally reflects the topography, but the actual rock
surface is variable due to the differential weathering pattern. “Refusal” can vary based
on drilling equipment and technique, in addition to the density, thus “refusal” is not
always a reliable indication of the “top of bedrock.” Rotary rock coring recoveries
exposed considerable deep weathering along steeply inclined.
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 7
Drawing S4 shows maximum expected bedrock contours based on the test borings, along
with design base grades and bedrock separation. Based on these data, rock defined by
“auger refusal” will likely be 10 feet or deeper below base grades across Phase 3.
Subsurface conditions will be confirmed during construction with test pits, and base
grades will be adjusted as needed to provide the required 4 feet of vertical separation
between the base grade and either bedrock or groundwater.
1.2.3 Springs, Seeps and Ground Water Discharge Features – Several streams are
located on the property, as indicated on various drawings and figures, though no running
streams existed within the footprint. Down gradient of Phase 3 is an unnamed tributary,
which exists entirely above the 100-year floodplain west of the CDLF. The tributary
stays wet much of the year, though no visible seeps or springs are obvious. The tributary
is considered a discharge for the uppermost aquifer in this portion of the site. The ground
water potentiometric maps, Drawing S3, depict the ground water contours tied to the
stream bottoms, consistent with the hydrogeologic model.
1.3 Test Borings
Drawings S2, S3 and S4 are plan-views of Phase 3 showing the various borings.
Including previous test borings drilled within Phases 3, i.e. B-8 and B-24, a total of 11
data points exists within the 7.6-acre phase, which exceeds the requirement of one boring
per acre. Three additional borings located along the margins are considered relevant: B-
14, B-18, and B-26. The earlier piezometers have long since been removed, but the data
are useful to supplement bedrock information. Nearby monitoring wells MW-1 and
MW-2 provide semi-annual water level data over approximately 15 years.
The test borings were drilled with an all-terrain vehicle-mounted drill rig turning hollow
stem augers for a considerable distance into the dense “sandrock” (100+ bpf material).
The borings extended to auger refusal depths, which varied from 14.6 feet at B-32 to 25.3
feet at B-34 Rock cores were taken at B-10, B-11, B-12, and B-13. The design base
grade is represented in plan-view and on cross sections, Drawings X1 and X2. These
drawings demonstrate that 4 feet of vertical separation, or more, exists between the
design base grades and the bedrock or ground water.
Test locations were selected based on topography and other features to demonstrate the
vertical separation characteristics within Phase 3. A summary of relevant test boring
data, e.g. elevations of weathered rock, bedrock, termination depths, and piezometer
screen intervals, is presented on Table 1. Test boring records are presented in
Attachment B.
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 8
1.4 Laboratory and Field Testing
1.4.1 Laboratory Analysis – Table 2 presents a summary of laboratory test data for
selected samples obtained in 2002. The laboratory test program consists of the following:
Flexible wall permeability – remolded* D5084 2
Standard Proctor Compaction D698 2
Grain Size w/Hydrometer D422, D1140 4
Atterberg Limits D4318 4
Natural Moisture D2216 4
*Flexible wall permeability test were performed on relatively undisturbed (Shelby tube) samples.
The soils were classified in the laboratory according the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS). These descriptions were matched to the boring logs to verify the visual
soil classifications. Based on the laboratory data, most of the on-site soils classify as
silty and clayey sands (SM and SC) and some sandy clayey sands (SM-ML and CL-ML).
Near surface soils exhibited clay contents varying from 8% to 31% by weight, whereas
the deeper soils show lower clay contents of 4% to 8%. Silt contents are typically 9.6%
to 58.9%, whereas sand content was measured from 10% to 86.4%. The lab reported
liquid limits varying from 35 to 49, while the plasticity indices generally vary from 13 to
21, consistent with sand and silt. Moisture content was reported from 5.1% to 38.3%.
In keeping with Division requirements, the effective porosity was estimated from the
grain size distribution analysis using the Textural Classification diagram,4 originally
developed by the US Geological Survey for estimating specific yields in porous aquifers.
In an unconfined aquifer, specific yield and effective porosity are close enough to be
considered interchangeable. The effective porosities are then utilized in ground water
velocity calculations. The ternary diagram (see Attachment A) shows apparent specific
yields generally grouped between 12% and 30% – the sandier soils exhibit generally
higher values; more silty soils exhibit generally lower values. The effective porosity
values were used in the hydraulic conductivity calculations are summarized on Table 3.
1.4.2 Formation Descriptions – Relevant test boring logs excerpted from the earlier
permitting studies are presented in Attachment B. The test borings and soil excavations
indicate soils derived chiefly from competent diorite and/or granite bedrock, with widely
spaced high-angle and sub-horizontal jointing and some thin pegmatite intrusions and
4 Johnson, A.I., Specific Yield – Compilation of Specific Yields for Various Materials, Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 1662, US Department of the Interior, 1967
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 9

quartz-filled veins underlying the site. The rock type observed on-site is consistent with
published mapping. The borings encountered no obvious voids, faults, or compressible
zones. Aquifers tend to form along highly weathered zones associated with jointing or
other fractures (i.e. conchoidal fracturing specific to granite) and within the deeper,
coarse-grained saprolite that mantles the bedrock. These are secondary porosity features,
not typically associated with a given stratigraphy. The aquifers are localized and follow
surface topography, associated with regional jointing and coincide with drainage features.
The near surface soils exhibit SPT values ranging from 11 to 100 blows per foot (bpf).
Apparent variability in density is due to differential weathering where soils containing
hard zones of sandy material (more resistant to weathering) are interlayered with softer,
more micaceous material (less resistant to weathering). At locations investigated for this
study, the soils become denser (i.e., exhibit higher SPT values) with increasing depth and
transition to “partially weathered rock”, defined as very dense saprolite defined by SPT
values over 100 bpf, but which can still be penetrated by a hollow stem auger.
The “partially weathered rock” transitions with depth to “bedrock” typically defined by
“auger refusal” in NC DENR nomenclature. Auger refusal depths vary in the Phase 3
area from approximately 14.6 to 25.30 feet. Typically, the granites exhibit deeper
weathering depths, hence deeper “auger refusal” conditions. The upper rock surface is
transitional, that is, the overlying soils grade into rock at variable depths, partly
influenced by textural and mineralogical variations in the diorite, resulting in a
differential weathering profile. The soil horizons contain veins of hard materials, termed
“stringers,” boulders, or occasional ledges of less weathered rock.

Below auger refusal depths, the rock is generally competent. Rock cores taken in the
Phase 3 indicate core run recoveries typically in the 70% to 100% range and rock quality
determination (RQD) varying from 40% to 90% for the first 5 to 10 feet below refusal
depths. Below these depths, recoveries approach 100% and RQD values increase to
typical values of 60% to 80%. In terms of hydrologic characteristics, rock with RQD
values less than approximately 60% tend to behave as “porous flow media”, while in
those with RQD values above 60% fracture flow characteristics are likely to predominate.

1.4.3 Field Hydrologic Testing – A summary of conductivity values calculated from
falling head slug tests are presented on Table 3. Initial static water level measurements
were made at the beginning of each slug test. The slug tests were conducted by placing a
combined data recorder-pressure transducer (In-Situ Level Troll™) at the bottom of the
piezometer, allowing the equipment to come to equilibrium, then inserting a cylindrical
fixed volume (slug) to raise the level of water in the well above the static water level.
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 10

This produced a differential head that caused water to flow out of the well until the head
pressure dissipated. The data logger was used to measure the rate of outflow until water
level equilibrium was reestablished. The test data were analyzed using the
HydroSOLVE, Inc. AQTESOLV for Windows™ program according to the Bouwer-Rice
procedure. The test data and permeability calculations are presented in Attachment C.

1.4.4 Hydrogeologic Units – Two principal hydrogeologic units were identified based
on the field hydraulic conductivity values: (1) saturated residuum (saprolite), and (2)
bedrock. Hydraulic conductivity data is summarized below:
Hydro Unit Bouwer-Rice Conductivity (cm/sec)
Unit Description Max. Min. Avg.
1 Saprolite 7.14E-6 at B-21 1.20E-5 at B-7 9.60E-6
2 Bedrock 6.00E-6 at B-19
There is variation within the saprolite, but the general trend is toward increasing density
with depth. The unit boundaries are transitional, that is, the units are interconnected and
can be considered as one contiguous porous aquifer from the uppermost point of
saturation down to the point where the rock is not weathered, below which discrete
fracture flow is dominant. In both flow regimes, hydrostatic pressure can lead to artesian
conditions, where the static water in the well can be higher than the depth at which a
water-bearing seam is encountered.
Hydraulic conductivity test values for the upper, weathered portion of the bedrock are
similar to that of the saprolite, which is expected based on the low recovery and RQD
data. The values are typical of those observed within the Piedmont. It should be noted
that slug tests measure hydraulic properties within a relatively narrow zone of influence
around the piezometer, and there could be sample bias, so conditions may vary.
1.4.5 Dispersivity Characteristics – Predicting the movement of contaminants in
ground water is of interest in developing an effective monitoring program. Contaminant
transport modeling, which is dependent on the properties of both the aquifer and the
contaminant of interest, is typically described in the literature by the advection-dispersion
equation, where advection is chemical movement via groundwater flow due to the
groundwater hydraulic (i.e. head) gradient, and dispersion is defined as, “the spreading
and mixing of chemical constituents in groundwater caused by diffusion and mixing (due
to microscopic variations in velocities within and between pores).” 5

5 http://www.fosterwelldrilling.com/glossary.htm

1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 11

As water moves through a porous medium, soil grains become obstacles that result in
friction between the fluid and solids, resulting in localized variations in groundwater
velocity. Solutes and non-soluble fluids that might be released from a waste unit
(contaminants of concern) may be introduced as a chronic mass flux over a long period or
as a relatively short-term pulse. Without dispersion, all the dissolved-phase contaminants
would travel in a straight line at the ambient groundwater velocity. With dispersion,
some chemical fluids travel faster and some slower than the mean velocity – due in part
to inherent aquifer properties and in part to chemical properties of the solute. Dispersion
results from both mechanical dispersion and molecular diffusion.

Mechanical dispersion describes the degree of mixing at the microscopic level, due to
the velocity variations within randomly oriented, interconnected pore space – an inherent
property of both the medium (texture and material type) and each solute (chemical
partitioning). Molecular diffusion describes variations in solute concentrations within
the fluid phase at the microscopic level – inherent to the solubility of each solute. The
dispersion coefficient is defined as the sum of the coefficients of mechanical dispersion
and molecular diffusion in a porous medium (Bear, 1972).6

Within aquifers with three-dimension flow, longitudinal dispersion describes how some
of the water molecules and solute molecules travel more rapidly than the average linear
velocity and some travel more slowly, spreading the solute in the direction of the bulk
flow, while transverse dispersion describes the spreading of the solute in directions
perpendicular to the bulk flow (after Freeze and Cherry, 1979).7

A key input parameter to advection-dispersion evaluations is a mixing parameter that
depends solely to the characteristics of the porous medium, i.e., dispersivity, α = D/ν,
where D is the dispersion coefficient [L2/T] and ν is the mean pore-water velocity [L/T].
Recognizing the inherent difficulties in measuring solute dispersion within undisturbed,
heterogeneous soils for use in predictive calculations of contaminant transport, whereas
most prior lab testing had focused on simple homogeneous soil, Perfect et al. evaluated a
series of laboratory flow tests using six different undisturbed soil types.8

6 Bear, J., Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Elsevier, New York, 1972

7 "The Federal Glossary of Selected Terms: Subsurface-Water Flow and Solute Transport", Department of
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, August 1989.
http://or.water.usgs.gov/projs_dir/willgw/glossary.html

8 Perfect, E., M.C. Sukop, G.R. Haszler, Prediction of Dispersivity for Undisturbed Soil Column from
Water Retention Parameters, Journal American Society of Soil Science, 66:696-701, 2002.

1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 12

That study measured breakthrough concentrations under steady state conditions, from
which the bulk dispersive characteristics of each soil were back-calculated to relate linear
dispersivity to the soil-type dependent effective porosity. It was determined that lab-
scale dispersivity ranged from less than 0.5 cm to more than 20 cm and increased
sequentially moving from coarser to finer textural classes. The following table depicts
the variation in dispersivity (denoted as “predicted” for comparison to reference values
published in an earlier work) and other parameters for the tested soil types.

Where: n = porosity (not specified; the paper discussed an effective transport porosity, θT)
Ψa = air-entry pressure, inversely related to the size of the largest pores
b = dimensionless parameter, directly related to the width of the pore distribution
α = dispersity coefficient.

Each unit of the uppermost aquifer consists of slightly to moderately to clayey and silty
sand. This classification is analogous to loamy sand, so values presented in the literature
might be considered representative. The models, which are often used to evaluate
horizontal spacing between monitoring wells, are sensitive to this parameter. However,
empirical evidence suggests that dispersivity can be most effectively estimated as a
function of contaminant plume length (i.e., the scale of the problem) and not the texture
or structure of the medium through which the plume is migrating. A practical rule of
thumb is ax (longitudinal dispersivity) is approximately 0.1 times the scale of the system,
and transverse dispersivity equals 0.1 times longitudinal dispersivity.9

9 http://www.epa.gov/athens/learn2model/part-two/onsite/longdisp.htm

1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 13

The use of advection-dispersion modeling can be appropriate for determining well
spacing on certain sites (e.g., sedimentary aquifers with relatively flat ground water
gradients), where discharge features may not be well defined or the land not controlled to
the discharge feature. However, at the subject site discharge features are well-defined
(i.e., streams hydraulically isolate the existing and proposed disposal units), and the
property (hence groundwater use) is controlled to the known discharge features.
Dispersion and dispersivity become less relevant under such conditions.

1.5 Other Investigative Tools
This report builds upon the Site Suitability study and direct observation of excavations of
Phases 1 and 2. Isolated occurrences of rock have been discovered, some of which were
considered too large to excavate – these were padded with soil to provide the required
vertical separation. No ground water was encountered at elevations above the excavated
base grades. The principle investigator visited the site many times over the 10-year
operational period, thus a significant understanding of the in-situ soil characteristics was
gained. No other field tests or investigations were deemed necessary.
1.6 Stratigraphic Cross Sections
Drawings X1 and X2 present two generalized subsurface profiles prepared from the test
boring and laboratory data, which indicate the hydrogeologic and lithologic units for this
site. There is no clear stratigraphy present (i.e., sedimentary formations). For this
discussion, two hydrogeologic units were identified based on the relative density of the
saturated residuum (saprolite) and underlying bedrock:
• Unit 1 is defined as the variably dense saprolite existing beneath the water table
and above a depth of “auger refusal.”
• Unit 2 is defined by materials that yield auger refusal and require rotary coring
and/or air-hammer techniques to penetrate (defined here as bedrock).
These units are characterized by differing degrees of weathering and corresponding
ranges of field hydraulic conductivity values (Section 1.4). The soil and rock units
exhibit differential weathering, typical of gradational boundaries. The subsurface profiles
show irregular unit boundaries that generally conform to the surface topography. Within
crystalline rock terrains of the Piedmont, relict jointing carried over from the parent rock
typically determines the development of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 aquifers. The spacing and
degree of weathering control the location, thickness, and transmissivity of the numerous
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 14

aquifers that form in the regolith (saprolite). Aquifers formed along the relatively
isolated fractures do not necessarily interconnect horizontally.10
Unit 1 exhibits porous flow media, characteristic of an unconfined to partially confined
“water table” aquifer. The thickness of saprolite is highly variable, but the Unit 1
designation considers the saturated zones only. Groundwater flow within Unit 2 is
discrete fracture flow along relatively widely spaced, localized joint sets. This
characterization is consistent with observations made of rock cores obtained during
drilling for previous field investigations conducted at the site. Due to the hydraulic
interconnection, Unit 1 influences pressure in Unit 2, thus these units are considered
together for drawing a single potentiometric surface (Drawings X1 and X2).

1.7 Water Table Information
1.7.1 Short-Term Water Levels – Table 4 presents a summary of short-term ground
water levels observed at the end of drilling and stabilized readings obtained after a period
of one to fourteen days after completion of the piezometers. These data are relevant for
this study in noting that many of the borings were initially dry, with stabilized water
levels occurring slowly at elevations higher than the bottoms of the borings.
1.7.2 Long-Term Water Levels – A summary of semi-annual water level observations
at the nearby monitoring wells extending back to 2006 is presented on Table 5.
Groundwater hydrographs for the monitoring wells follow the table. These data can be
used to correlate recent water level observations with climatic trends and historic water
level observations for estimating the maximum long-term seasonal high-water levels.
Historical climatic trends are published using regional climatic data from the National
Climatic Data Center.11 A key parameter of interest is the Palmer Hydrologic Drought
Index (PHDI), which is compiled for over 100 years of weather records. The PHDI
represents an overall moisture balance within a region, compiled from multiple weather
stations for average precipitation, temperature (PET effects), leaf indices (growing
season), wind velocities, and solar radiation. Palmer indices provide a more complete
description of climatic trends than precipitation data alone, since evapotranspiration

10 LeGrand, Sr., H.E., A Master Conceptual Model for Hydrogeological Site Characterization in the
Piedmont and Mountain Region of North Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, 2004
11 Time Bias Corrected Divisional Temperature-Precipitation-Drought Index, (TD-9640) March 1994,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, periodic updates available at www.ncdc.noaa.gov.

1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 15

effects are factored into the overall moisture balance in the atmosphere and at the ground
surface, i.e., the water availability for ground water recharge.
PHDI values can be presented as a hydrograph that shows cyclical trends, both seasonal
and over a longer timeframe (decades). Shifts in PHDI indices for a given region reflect
local climate changes, as well as changes in land use, e.g., forest cover vs. urban
development. Major climate events can influence the regional PHDI; notable events seen
across much of North Carolina include hurricanes, e.g., Fran in 1996 and Floyd in 1999,
as well as global phenomena, the most recognizable is “El Nino.” 12

Values are either neutral, i.e., “normal” relative to historical statistics, positive indicating
a wet spell, or negative indicating drought. The increasing numerical value toward
positive or negative represents the degree if wetness or drought, described with adjectives
moderate, severe, extreme, and exceptional. The use of Palmer indices provides a more
realistic indication of the recharge potential than considering precipitation alone. The
NOAA offers on-line interactive graphing capability by states and regions.

Figure 4
However, the PHDI graphs (Figures 4 and 5) do not show that El Nino as especially
remarkable in this region. It is interesting to note in the short-term graph (Figure 4) that a
drastic reversal of the PHDI in late 2002, in which a peak negative (drought) transitioned
to a peak positive (wet spell) within a few weeks, both extreme periods lasting for several
months’ duration. This event was reflected in ground water monitoring networks
throughout the North Carolina piedmont, with several monitored sites experiencing
record high ground water levels. This was called an “anomaly” relative to hydrologic
investigations then under review by the Solid Waste Section. Similar reversals can be
seen throughout the record, just not as pronounced, following the normal seasonality.

12 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/onlineprod/drought/xmgr.html and
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 16
700.00
710.00
720.00
730.00
740.00
750.00
760.00
770.00
780.00
790.00
800.00
11/01/0603/01/0707/01/0711/01/0703/01/0807/01/0811/01/0803/01/0907/01/0911/01/0903/01/1007/01/1011/01/1003/01/1107/01/1111/01/1103/01/1207/01/1211/01/1203/01/1307/01/1311/01/1303/01/1407/01/1411/01/14Ground Water ElevationMonitoring Well Hydrograph
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
Historic Maximum at MW-4, El. 728.42 in April
Historic Maximum at MW-3, El. 728.47 in June
Figure 5
In the long-term PHDI graph (Figure 5), the 2002 anomaly stands out as the wettest
period on record, albeit short-lived, ironically following the peak drought on record. It
should be noted that all the available water does not infiltrate, whereas the PHDI does not
consider surface conditions (slope, drainage and vegetative cover) at a given site. These
data represent the overall moisture trend for the region during a given period.
Figure 6
The on-site ground water data extends back to 2006. The regional climatology since
2006 shows normal seasonal fluctuation, not excessively wet or dry, thus ground water
trends during this time are expected to within a normal range, with highs and lows
reflecting seasonal trends. The historic maximum at MW-1, shown above, the up-
gradient background well not subject to changes in surface conditions, occurred in April
2010 with an observed water level of El. 791.96.
In April 2014 an observed water level of El. 790.73 reflects the PHDI peak that occurred
in the winter of 2009-2010. The April 2010 maximum is seen in the other four wells,
albeit the difference between the peak and ambient water levels is not as pronounced.
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 17
This is expected because wells in the higher elevations are prone to more significant
fluctuation. Monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-4 exhibit maximum values in June 2013
(El. 728.47) and April 2014 (El. 728.42), respectively, which not only reflect a wet spell
that occurred from 2013 to 2014. It should be noted that the PHDI for both the 2009-10
and 2013-14 peaks were at least as wet as the El Nino winter of 1997-98.
1.7.3 Estimated Seasonal High-Water Table – Groundwater level observations at
the site include semi-annual data from 2009 through 2018 (see Table 5 Hydrograph).
The data show a typical correlation between historic climatic trends and ground water
levels. Over the years, the extremes have rounded out, such that the hydrograph curves
are relatively smooth and reflect the seasonal trends. Within two wells near Phase 3,
MW-1 and MW-2, the historic maxima still occur in April 2010. At MW-1, the historic
minimum was observed in November 2014. At MW-2 another “maximum” occurred in
November 2015, although it is believed that uphill grading activities influenced the data.
The extremes at MW-1 indicate 5 feet of fluctuation, but the “typical” seasonal
fluctuation is less than 3 feet. The MW-1 hydrograph shows a gradually decreasing trend
over the period of record (discussed in the next section). The extremes at MW-2 indicate
1.6 feet of fluctuation. The data show water levels early 2018 existed near a geometric
mean, representative of “typical” spring-time values, at both wells (see Drawing S-3).
The historic maxima are 2 feet (MW-3) and 4 feet (MW-1) higher than the observations
made in early 2018. Applying this logic, the estimated maximum seasonal high
groundwater contours shown in Drawing S3 were developed by adding 4 feet to the June
2018 observations in Phase 3A (northern portion nearest MW-1) and by adding 2 feet in
Phase 3B (southern portion nearest MW-3). The groundwater contours were extended
into the Phase 2A to demonstrate continuity. Of note, recent changes to the offsite
landscape (by others) uphill of MW-1 have altered groundwater recharge characteristics;
as such, the high-water level observed in 2010 is not likely to recur.
1.7.4 Factors That Influence the Water Table – The broad topographic ridge to the
east of the facility represents a large recharge zone; streams in the northeast and
southwest portions of the property and a regional creek along western facility boundary
provide on-site discharge zones. Groundwater movement beneath the site appears to
have a strong horizontal component toward the west; recharge (downward movement) is
expected over most of the site, while discharge (upward movement) occurs at the stream
banks and beneath the streams. Manmade influences include changing vegetative cover
and soil excavations, and the landfill itself.
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 18
Recent development of an open-pit mine east of the facility has lowered ground surfaces
by 10 to 15 feet, altering surface flow patterns and, ostensibly, groundwater recharge
characteristics upgradient of the facility. That work occurred beyond the 200-foot buffer,
but the results are apparent in the hydrograph for MW-1, whereas a trendline shows
approximately 2 feet of decrease in the geometric mean. The excavation is not expected
to extend much deeper than it presently exists, and the groundwater contours do not
indicate any alteration of flow patterns beneath the facility. The landfill limits recharge
within the footprint, and subtle changes in geochemistry have been noted in the
monitoring data, but these changes are not necessarily tied to landfill constituents. The
discharge areas are unchanged and monitoring locations appear to be appropriate.
1.8 Horizontal and Vertical Flow Dimensions
Ground water movement at the site occurs through the unconsolidated porous media
aquifer (Unit 1) and through a mix of discreet fractures and porous media within the
weathered upper bedrock aquifer (Unit 2). The crystalline bedrock exhibits numerous
steeply inclined joints that are visible in the soil profile, with weathered zones having
formed along the jointing that results in a gradual boundary between the porous media
and discreet fractures. The “water table” or uppermost zone of saturation typically occurs
at depths greater than 20 feet. The top of the saturated zone is represented as a seepage
line in Drawings X1 and X2, the slope of the line depicts generalized flow directions.
The exploration data show the uppermost saprolite aquifer is inter-connected
hydraulically with the deeper bedrock aquifer with no discreet confining layers.
Horizontal flow occurs throughout a relatively thick saturated zone, beginning at depths
greater than 20 feet beneath the surface. The cross sections indicate a dominant
horizontal flow pattern between the recharge and discharge zones. Downward
groundwater movement (indicative of recharge) is inferred over a majority of the site.
Upward ground water movement (indicative of discharge) occurs adjacent to the streams.
Vertical Flow: The majority of the site is characterized topographically as upland areas
and slopes. Groundwater recharge occurs mainly in these upland areas in the Piedmont,
while discharge occurs mainly in lowland areas bordering surface water bodies, marshes,
and floodplains. As stated by LeGrand (2004), “Hydraulic head beneath upland areas
decreases with depth, resulting in the overall downward movement of groundwater and
providing the mechanism for recharge to the aquifer… Hydraulic head beneath lowland
areas increases with depth, indicating upward movement of groundwater.”13
13 See Note 10.
1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 19

The earlier Site Suitability study or Design Hydrogeologic Investigation did not include
piezometer couplets, from which the vertical flow gradients can be calculated. However,
the original test boring data at MW-3 and MW-4 indicate stabilized water levels much
higher than those observed upon completion of the borings. Both borings encountered
moist alluvial soils but relatively dry underlying saprolite, until auger refusal was
encountered with wet soil conditions at depths below the adjacent creek bottom. This
condition suggests that upward water movement occurs beneath the floodplain and the
stream bottom, i.e., these features function as discharge features.
Horizontal Flow: Table 6 presents horizontal groundwater gradient data and velocity
calculations for various piezometers at the site. Calculated horizontal groundwater flow
velocities are based on field hydraulic conductivity data collected at the various
piezometers (Attachment C) and horizontal gradients estimated from potentiometric
contours shown on Drawing S3. The data show the hydraulic conductivity of Unit 1
does not differ significantly from Unit 2. Horizontal gradients vary within a range of
0.024 to 0.062. Estimated average horizontal groundwater velocities are as follows:
Hydrogeologic Average Horizontal Velocity
Unit ft/day ft/year
1 0.003 1.1
2 0.006 2.2
1.9 Ground Water Contour Maps
Drawing S3 show groundwater potentiometric contours developed from the early 2018
data. Site-wide, ground water flow is generally to the west with minor radial flow to the
southwest and northwest, toward the surface streams. The potentiometric contours
generally reflect a subdued expression of the surface topography – characteristic of the
Piedmont province – making a smooth transition to the unnamed tributary. Within Phase
3, the groundwater flow is westward with a southwesterly component.
1.10 Local Well and Water Use Information
No occupied dwellings were identified between the landfill and the nearest ground water
discharge points. The nearest water supply well is at the scale house, which is within
another drainage basin (and localized aquifer) from the landfill footprint. Most of the
region is on a municipal water supply system.

1.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 20
1.11 Special Geologic Considerations
No unusual geologic features were observed that would affect groundwater flow or the
ability to effectively monitor the site. The diabase dike does not appear to affect ground
water flow. Conditions are typical of the North Carolina piedmont.
1.12 Summary Report
Ground water conditions near the subject site consist of multiple short segmented, closed-
loop hydrologic systems developed along the drainage features, with recharge occurring
over a majority of the site and discharge occurring at adjacent streams and on-site
streams. Ground water depths beneath Phase 3 vary from 4 to 10 feet beneath the
finished base grades. Groundwater flow is horizontal beneath Phase 3, now and
continuing after the future cell development, with velocities on the order of 1 to 2
feet/year within the upper saprolite (Unit 1).
Historical water levels observed at the on-site monitoring wells show seasonal fluctuation
that correlate to climatic variation. The water levels observed beneath Phase 3 are
shallower than those originally contoured during the site suitability study, due largely as a
result of poor surface drainage during the winter months leading up to this investigation.
Base grades have been set based on the March 2015 data, although this approach is
conservative; i.e., the shallower water levels observed beneath Phase 3 are temporary and
are believed to be artificially induced by the drainage conditions.
Groundwater flow beneath Phase 3 flows generally toward the west and discharges along
the streams bordering the site. There are no known groundwater users within 500 feet of
the landfill, and those outside this radius are across the major stream bordering the
property. No known groundwater users are located down gradient of the landfill;
institutional controls will prevent future down gradient groundwater use. The landfill
poses no apparent threat to local groundwater supplies.
2.0 DESIGN HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 21
2.0 Design Hydrogeologic Report – CDLF Phase 3
Hydrogeological investigations performed for Phase 3 during the Site Suitability study
(2002) and the Design Hydrogeologic evaluation (2018), provide an adequate amount of
relevant data for characterizing the 7.6-acre Phase 3 footprint, and either designing or
confirming an effective ground water monitoring program.
2.1 Ground Water Monitoring System Design
2.1.1 Uppermost Aquifer Characteristics – The saprolite (Unit 1) that mantles the
bedrock (Unit 2) is ubiquitous and exhibits a transitional boundary. This uppermost unit
exhibits porous media characteristics and hydraulic pressures associated with an
unconfined to partially confined “water table” aquifer. Multiple aquifers exist within the
saprolite along the fracture pattern underlying the drainage features and the topography.
Beneath the transitional boundary, the nonweathered bedrock (Unit 2) generally exhibits
discreet fracture flow characteristics and slow recharge. Due to the widespread
distribution and thickness of the saprolite, in addition to the deeper saprolite exhibiting
relatively high transmissivity, this unit is the primary focus of the groundwater
monitoring program. The saprolite discharges within the facility boundary, which is an
ideal condition for effective ground water monitoring.
2.1.2 Relevant Point of Compliance – Selection of monitoring well locations for
compliance monitoring of the uppermost aquifer is based on an understanding of
hydrogeological conditions presented in this report and the earlier study by others. North
Carolina solid waste Rule .1631 (a)(2)(B), pertaining to MSW facilities (extended to
CDLFs) makes a provision for the relevant point of compliance to be located no more
than 150 feet from the waste boundary (relative to a 200-foot buffer) but at least 50 feet
within the facility boundary. The distance from the lower waste boundary to the facility
boundary is over 300 feet. Division policy has been to require the compliance wells to be
located within approximately 75-100 feet of the waste boundary, or approximately half
the distance between the edge of waste and the compliance boundary. Based on the site
studies, it appears that the location of existing compliance wells is appropriate.
2.1.3 Monitoring Plan Amendments – No additional groundwater wells are proposed at
this time. The approved Sampling and Analysis Plan is presented in Appendix 5.
2.0 DESIGN HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)

A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 22

2.2 Rock Core Information

Samples of the bedrock were taken in the earlier Site Suitability study. The boring logs
(Attachment B) indicate rock cores were taken at six borings relevant to Phase 3 in
diorite (MW-1, MW-2, B-10, B-11, B-12, and B-13) and one in granite (B-11). The
diorite cores exhibited recovery values typically above 90% and rock quality
determination (RQD) values of 40% to 90%. The granite core exhibited recovery values
of 72% and rock quality determination value of 40%. Based on the recovery and RQD
values, the rock encountered by these borings would classify as fracture flow media. The
test boring logs (Attachment B) present the detailed descriptions of the rock cores.
Photos of the cores were presented in the Site Suitability report.
2.3 Estimated Long-Term Seasonal High-Water Table
Section 1.7.3 provides a detailed description of historic water level data, including wells
pertaining to the CDLF. These data were used to estimate a maximum long-term
seasonal high potentiometric surface, presented in Drawing S2. The 2018 boring logs
were used to amend the potentiometric surface for Phase 3, presented in Drawing S3. It
should be noted based on earlier site studies, minimum vertical separation requirements
were met in the original Phase 1. Special circumstances led to the water levels observed
in Phase 2. The groundwater contours depict at least 4 feet of vertical separation.
2.4 Bedrock Contour Map
The top-of-bedrock contours (based on auger refusal) are presented in Drawing S4.
Nearly all the test borings were extended to auger refusal, thus the data density for the top
of rock has high resolution. It should be noted that the contours in Phase 3 represent
maximum expected bedrock elevations in Phase 3, which were set based on the boring
log information and will be confirmed by test pits and first-hand observations when the
phase is mined. The bedrock contours depict at least 4 feet of vertical separation.
2.5 Hydrogeologic Cross Sections
Drawings X1 and X2 present two generalized hydrogeologic cross-sections, one parallel
to the primary ground water direction, the other perpendicular, which depict the
horizontal and vertical extent of the upper most aquifer (Unit 1) and ground water flow
characteristics (discharge areas vs. recharge areas). The cross sections show more than
the minimum vertical separation requirement for bedrock and/or the maximum long-term
seasonal high potentiometric surface and Phase 3 base grades.
2.0 DESIGN HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
(15A NCAC 13B .0538)
A-1 Sandrock CDLF Phase 3 PTC 10/18/2018
Permit #41-17-CDLF-2009 Design Hydro Study Page 23
2.6 Ground Water Flow Regime
Ground water at this site is isolated from areas beyond the boundary streams. Recharge
occurs over a majority of the site and discharge occurs along the stream margins.
Principle groundwater flow paths occur within the mantle of saprolite (Unit 1) above the
bedrock (Unit 2) and for some distance into the bedrock along fractures. Porous zones
are developed beneath drainage features. Highly conductive zones are typically located
at the base of the saprolite, with thicknesses ranging on the order of 20 to 60 feet. The
porous flow transitions to discrete fracture flow within the deeper crystalline bedrock.
Average hydraulic conductivity values on the order of 9.60 x 10-6 cm/sec were calculated
for the saprolite, and values of 6.00 x 10-6 cm/sec were calculated for the bedrock.
Horizontal gradients beneath Phase 3 vary from 0.024 to 0.062 within Unit 1. The
horizontal gradients reflect the generally the gently rolling topography and influence the
ground water velocities. Calculated horizontal velocities are approximately 0.003
feet/day (1.1 feet/year) within the saprolite, and 0.006 feet/day (2.2 feet/year) in the
bedrock. The saprolite (Unit 1) is considered as the “uppermost” aquifer.
2.7 On-site Soils Report
Sampled materials in Phase 3 generally tested as clayey sand (SC). Nearly all the soils
exhibit a coarse grain texture (chiefly sand and fine gravel fractions) with variable
amounts of silt and clay. The soils are generally non-plastic and exhibit excellent
strength characteristics. In-situ, the soils are only moderately permeable. Two bulk
samples from within the upper 10 feet beneath the surface exhibited remolded laboratory
hydraulic conductivity values of 1.11 x 10-5 cm/sec to 6.03 x 10-7 cm/sec when
compacted to 95% standard Proctor maximum dry density.
2.8 Certification
This is to certify that all borings that intersected the water table at this site have been
constructed and maintained as permanent monitoring wells or shall be abandoned in
accordance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 02C .0113.
Signed ___________________________
Printed G. David Garrett, PG, PE
Date October 18, 2018
Not valid unless this document bears the seal of the above-named licensed professional.
ATTACHMENT A
Design Hydrogeologic Tables
Table 1
Test Boring/Piezometer Data
Borings relevant to Phase 3
Depth, ft. Elev.Depth, ft. Elev.Depth, ft. Elev.
B-6 5/21/2002 735.57 HSA 23.5 15.0 720.5 23.5 712.1 13.5 722.0 23.5 712.1
B-7 5/21/2002 732.63 HSA 18.2 18.2 714.4 18.2 714.4 13.0 719.5 18.2 714.4
B-8 5/21/2002 807.00 HSA 21.0 3.0 804.0 21.0 786.0 22.0 781.4 27.0 776.4 2.4*
B-10 5/8/2002 805.83 803.43 HSA/Core 27.5 0.0 803.4 17.5 785.9 22.0 779.4 27.0 774.4 2.4*
B-11 5/7/2002 803.87 801.44 HSA/Core 27.6 12.1 789.3 17.6 783.8 25.0 781.5 30.0 776.5 1.6*
B-12 5/1/2002 808.12 806.53 HSA/Core 30.0 0.0 806.5 19.5 787.0 14.5 789.3 19.5 784.3 2.8*
B-13 5/9/2002 806.59 803.75 HSA/Core 30.0 6.2 797.6 19.1 784.7
B-14 5/21/2002 797.56 HSA 15.2 3.0 794.6 15.2 782.4 19.0 763.5 29.0 753.5 2.9*
B-17 5/10/2002 768.97 767.45 HSA 36.5 2.9 764.6 36.5 731.0 30.0 737.5 35.0 732.5 1.5*
B-18 5/9/2002 785.39 782.49 HSA 29.0 6.5 776.0 29.0 753.5 10.0 762.1 15.0 757.1 2.0*
B-19 5/1/2002 776.64 773.50 HSA/Core 65.5 2.0 771.5 53.6 719.9 60.0 713.5 65.0 708.5 3.1*
B-21 4/30/2002 809.97 807.94 HSA 60.4 2.7 805.2 60.4 747.5 48.0 759.9 58.0 749.9 2.0*
B-24 5/10/2002 774.17 772.08 HSA 15.0 2.1 770.0 15.0 757.1
B-25 5/20/2002 778.50 HSA 14.1 8.5 770.0 14.1 778.5
B-26 5/22/2002 789.50 HSA 15.0 9.0 780.5 14.0 775.5
B-30 2/23/2018 843.10 HSA 7.9 0.0 843.1 7.9 835.2
B-31 2/23/2018 794.20 789.80 HSA 16.0 7.0 782.8 16.0 773.8 5.6 798.2 15.6 788.2 4.4
B-32 2/22/2018 802.10 HSA 14.6 7.0 795.1 14.6 787.5
B-33 2/22/2018 811.70 807.80 HSA 21.7 11.0 796.8 21.7 786.1 11.3 796.5 21.3 786.5 3.9
B-34 2/22/2018 803.80 HSA 23.5 23.5 780.3 25.3 778.5
B-35 2/23/2018 752.00 HSA 32.9 28.5 723.5 32.9 719.1
B-36 2/28/2018 739.90 HSA 23.9 14.0 725.9 23.9 716.0
B-37 2/27/2018 740.10 HSA 39.9 34.0 706.1 39.9 700.2
B-38 2/27/2018 732.00 HSA 28.7 19.0 713.0 28.7 703.3
B-39 2/28/2018 764.00 HSA 28.9 14.0 750.0 28.9 735.1
B-40 2/28/2018 766.50 HSA 2.0 2.0 764.5 2.0 764.5
B-41 2/28/2018 770.00 HSA 17.5 17.5 752.5 17.5 752.5
Notes 1 Piezometers screened in rock at B-10, B-11, and B-12 (all are abandoned), and B-33 and B-34 *Abandoned
2 Piezometers screened in saprolite at B-12, B-13, B-18, and B-24 (all abandoned)
3 PWR is defined as saprolite that exhibits standard penetration resistance values in excess of 100 blows per foot (not necessarily a distinct hydrogeological unit)
4 Bedrock is defined as auger refusal material (this is considered a distinct hydogeologic unit where RQD values exceed 50%)
5 All piezometers are 2" flush-wall PVC with 0.010" screen openings
PWR Elev.
Auger Refusal Top of Piez. Screen Bottom of Piez. Screen
Stickup ft.
Elevation Data Test Boring Data Piezometer Construction Data
Boring
Number Boring Date
PVC Pipe
Elev.
Ground
Elev.
Drilling
Method
Total Depth,
ft.
PWR Depth,
ft.
A-1 Sandrock Phase 3 Design Hydro 10/4/2018
Table 2Sample Types:S = Split spoon sampleGeotechnical Laboratory DataB = Bulk sampleU = Undisturbed (Shelby tube)Grain Size Distributution and Soil Classification% >3" % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay% Passing>75 mm 75 mm> 4.5 mm> 0.075 mm> 0.005 mm>#200 Sieve> #4 #4 - #200 #200 > %B-13B1 0.0 - 50.0 0.0 3.0 68.0 21.0 8.0 NP NP NP SM-ML 5.1 29.0 Gray-Brown Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-21B2 0.0 -20.0 0.0 0.0 87.5 6.5 6.0 23.0 18.0 5.0 SM – 12.5 Tan Silty Coarse to Fine SANDB-22B3 0.0 - 20.0 0.0 0.0 75.7 19.3 5.0 NP NP NP SM 2.3 24.3 Gray Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-11S1 3.5 - 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 58.9 31.0 49.0 28.0 21.0 CL-ML 38.3 89.9 Orange Silty CLAYB-11S3 13.5 - 15.0 0.0 6.5 68.0 24.0 8.0 NP NP NP SM 10.7 32.0 Gray-Tan Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-12S2 8.5 - 10.0 0.0 0.0 86.4 9.6 4.0 NP NP NP SM 4.5 13.6 White-Brown Silty F - C SANDB-19S3 13.5 - 15.0 0.0 0.0 83.4 16.6 – NP NP NP SM – 16.6 Silty Fine to Medium SANDB-21S1 3.5 - 5.0 0.0 0.0 39.5 43.5 17.0 33.0 24.0 9.0 SM-ML – 60.5 Tan Fine Sandy SILTB-21S2 8.5 - 10.0 0.0 0.0 40.7 41.3 18.0 41.0 28.0 13.0 SM-ML – 59.3 Fine Sandy SILTB-21S3 13.5 - 15.0 0.0 0.0 55.8 38.2 6.0 28.0 23.0 5.0 SM-ML – 44.2 Silty Fine SANDB-21S4 18.5 - 20.0 0.0 0.0 54.0 38.0 8.0 NP NP NP SM-ML – 46.0 Silty Fine SANDB-30B1 1.0 - 7.9 0.0 29.2 42.7 18.2 9.9 35.0 19.0 16.0 CL 14.0 28.2 Brown Lean CLAYB-32B2 1.0 - 8.5 0.0 8.2 54.8 28.1 8.9 35.0 22.0 13.0 CL 16.2 37.0 Brown Lean CLAYB-36S3 8.5 - 10.0 0.0 0.7 68.6 20.8 9.9 20.0 24.0 4.0 SC-SM 9.9 30.7 Yellow Clayey Silty SANDB-37S1 1.0 - 2.5 0.0 0.9 43.7 22.2 33.2 24.0 41.0 17.0 CL 22.9 55.4 Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAYB-37S8 28.5 - 30.0 0.0 5.8 49.6 34.2 10.4 24.0 34.0 10.0 SC 33.1 44.6 Olive Brown Clayey SANDB-38S2 3.5 - 5.0 0.0 0.6 38.0 24.9 36.5 24.0 45.0 21.0 CL 21.1 61.4 Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAYNotes to Above:Moisture Contents are Dry Unit Weight BasedMoisture data for bulk samples acquired from individual jar samples collected with the bulk sample. Samples were oven-dried. Samples tested by Geotechnologies, Amec Foster Wheeler, and GeotechnicsUSCS Class.Natural MoistureHydrogeologic DescriptionBoring NumberSample NumberSample Depth, ft.Liquid LimitPlasticity LimitPlasticity IndexA-1 Sandrock Phase 3 Design Hydro10/3/2018
Table 2 - Continued
Geotechnical Laboratory Data
Compaction Data - Bulk Samples
Boring Sample Sample Max. Dry Optimum
Number Number Depth, ft.Density, pcf Moisture, %
B-13 B1 0.0-50.0 125.5 12.0%
B-30 B1 1.0-7.9 122.0 11.0%
B-32 B2 1.0-8.5 120.4 12.3%
Hydraulic Conductivity Data - Remolded Samples
Boring Sample Sample Compaction Tested K Porosity
Number Number Depth, ft.% MDD Moisture, %cm/sec %
B-13 B1 0.0-50.0 92.0%16.3%1.11E-05 30.2%
B-30 B1 1.0-7.9 97.6%14.5%2.20E-07 29.3%
B-32 B2 1.0-8.5 95.8%12.5%6.30E-07 31.5%
Triaxial Shear Strength Data - Remolded Samples
Boring Sample Sample Phi Cohesion Phi'Cohesion'
Number Number Depth, ft.Degrees psf Degrees psf
B-30 B-1 1.0-7.9 18.3 410.4 30.9 0
B-32 B-2 1.0-8.5 9.5 483.8 34.3 90.7
Consolidation Test Data Past Pressure Compression Rebound Consolidaton
psf*Ratio**Ratio Coeffecient***
No UDs Acquired
NA NA NA NA
Notes to Above:
All Moisture Contents are Dry Unit Weight Based
Moisture data for bulk samples acquired from individual jar samples collected with the bulk sample.
A-1 Sandrock Phase 3 Design Hydro 10/3/2018
Table 3Summary of Hydrogeological PropertiesConductivity Values Based on Falling Head Slug Tests, Evaluated by Two Methods:HvorslevBouwer-RiceInputInputInputInputPiezometerHydrologicalHydrogeologicalAquiferScreenHeight ofStatic Water EffectiveTotalConductivityConductivityNo.UnitDescription *ThicknessLength, ft.Water*Level, ft.**PorosityPorosityk (cm/sec)k (cm/sec)B-61 - GraniteDense to Very Dense, Silty,121011.914.260.2030.2% to6.77E-061.43E-05B-71 - GraniteFine to Coarse SAND, residual1259.410.650.2022.40%5.47E-061.20E-05B-181 - Granitemixed with Sandy SILT10109.822.090.206.10E-071.37E-06B-211 - Granite(SM and SM-ML, Saprolite)16211644.030.202.59E-067.14E-06Residual Overburden SoilUnconfined Aquifer"Sandrock"B-192 - Granite50528.539.680.172.37E-066.00E-06B-102 - DioriteHard, Variably Weathered5051.527.960.15NANAB-112 - DioriteGranite and/or Diorite Gneiss5056.622.840.15NANAB-122 - Diorite5051.330.290.15NANAB-132 - DioriteFractured BedrockDry5DryDry0.15NANAB-222 - DioriteConfined Aquifer5052.731.420.15NANAEffective and total porosity values taken from Groundwater and Wells (Driscoll, 1986), p. 67.All slug tests were of the falling head variety. Water levels in the diorite stabilized within the screen interval, which renders the slug test invalid (not performed under these conditions)Bedrock aquifer thickness was assumed to be approximately 50 feet in thickness within the upper more transmissive zoneSaprolite aquifer thickness, including dense soil and partially weathered rock (100+ bpf material), was determined as the vertical distance from the water table to auger refusal\NOTE: the methods used to analyze the slug test data, Hvorslev and Bouwer-Rice, are not especially sensitive to the aquifer thickness input parameter* Vertical distance from top of water table to bottom of screen in the piezometer**Measured from top of piezometer casingInsufficient water depth in piezometer to run the slug test at B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-22A-1 Sandrock Design Hydro10/4/2018
Table 4Short-Term Ground Water ObservationsBoringBoring PVC PipeGroundNumberDateElev.Elev.Depth, ft. Elev.Depth, ft. Elev.Depth, ft. Elev.DateB-65/21/2002738.30735.5711.0724.611.7723.911.5724.05/28/2002B-75/21/2002734.65732.63Dry*8.8723.98.6724.05/28/2002B-85/21/2002807.00Dry - No Piez.B-105/8/2002805.83803.4323.3780.125.3778.125.6777.95/28/2002B-115/7/2002803.87801.4419.7781.820.4781.020.4781.05/28/2002B-125/1/2002808.12806.5327.0779.528.8777.728.7777.85/28/2002B-135/9/2002806.59803.75Dry**DryDryB-145/21/2002797.56Dry - No Piez.B-185/9/2002785.39782.4917.8764.719.2763.319.2763.35/28/2002B-245/10/2002774.17772.08Dry w/ PiezDryDryB-255/20/2002778.50Dry - No Piez.B-265/22/2002789.50Dry - No Piez.B-304/13/2000843.10NA NA B-314/13/2000789.80NA12.0777.8B-322/22/2018802.10NANAB-332/22/2018807.80NA21.0786.819.9787.92/29/2018B-342/22/2018803.80NANANAB-352/23/2018752.00NA23.5728.5B-362/28/2018739.9017.5722.417.0722.9B-372/27/2018740.1025.0715.1NAB-382/27/2018732.0018.0714.0B-392/28/2018764.00NA17.0747.0B-402/28/2018766.50NANAB-412/28/2018770.00NANAWell***812.41811.7426.9784.84/30/2002*No water encountered at auger refusal, time of completion water level after coring is not representative (piezometers were bailed dry after completion)All cored borings were bailed dry after obtaining 24-hour water levels and again on May 14, 2002 (except B-13)**B-13 experienced total water loss during coring, piezometer remained dryBoring Numbers B-1 through B-5 were completed as monitoring wellsAll water depths shown are referenced from ground surface, bgs (measured from top of piez. casing)***On-site water well, 6" diameter drilled with steel casing, not used for domestic supply (no other construction information available)Time of Boring LevelsStabilized Levels (24 hr)Stabilized Levels (7+ day)A-1 Sandrock Phase 3 Design Hydro10/3/2018
Table 5
Long-Term Ground Water Level Observations
On-site Monitoring Wells
MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6
T.O.C.816.05 761.92 731.82 733.17 762.88 755.89
10/27/2009 787.02 752.51 725.9 726.3 747.35
4/9/2010 791.96 753.13 727.72 728.35 747.94
11/2/2010 787.14 752.57 725.53 726.73 747.3
5/24/2011 787.68 752.47 724.83 727.26 747.45
11/1/2011 784.96 752.72 727.91 727.52 747.64
5/17/2012 788.55 752.51 728.07 728.13 747.79
11/15/2012 785.21 752.49 725.71 727.85 747.38
6/27/2013 788.75 752.73 728.47 727.27 747.53
11/25/2013 787.44 752.27 725.14 726.8 747.39
4/28/2014 790.73 753.19 727.27 728.42 747.54
11/25/2014 784.94 752.57 725.57 726.46 747.39
5/21/2015 787.44 752.62 726.33 727.54 747.44 730.84
11/23/2015 786.65 753.82 728.88 728.89 748.2 731.62
6/1/2016 789.57 753.36 726.18 727.55 747.57 731.21
12/5/2016 785.84 752.79 725.83 726.7 747.8 729.99
11/20/2017 785.05 752.12 725.92 726.47 747.48 729.89
6/5/2018 787.55 752.52 726.11 727 747.46 730.33
A-1 Sandrock Phase 3 Design Hydro 10/3/2018
A-1 Sandrock Phase 3 Design Hydro10/3/2018720.00730.00740.00750.00760.00770.00780.00790.00800.0010/01/0902/01/1006/01/1010/01/1002/01/1106/01/1110/01/1102/01/1206/01/1210/01/1202/01/1306/01/1310/01/1302/01/1406/01/1410/01/1402/01/1506/01/1510/01/1502/01/1606/01/1610/01/1602/01/1706/01/1710/01/1702/01/1806/01/18Ground Water ElevationMonitoring Well HydrographMW-1MW-2MW-3MW-4MW-5MW-6Historic Maximum at MW-1, El. 791.96in Oct 2010Historic Maximum at MW-2, El. 753.82 in Nov 2015Historic Minimum at MW-1, El. 784.94 in Nov 2015 Historic Minimum at MW-2, El. 752.12 in Nov 2017Values are approximately "average" during 2018 site investigation
Table 6Horizontal Ground Water Gradient and Velocity CalculationsBased on Bouwer-Rice Solutions (Table 3)Ground water elevations and reference potentiometric elevations are based on May 2002 observationsHydr.Well / Piez. Hydraulic Conductivity (k)GroundReferenceVerticalHorizontalHydraulicEffectiveGround WaterUnitNo.cm/secft/dayWater El.ElevationChange, ft.Change, ft.Gradient (I)Porosity (n)Velocity (V), ft/day1B-61.43E-050.040724.0740161500.1070.200.0211B-71.20E-050.033724.073062500.0240.200.0041B-181.37E-060.004763.37706.71500.0450.200.0011B-217.14E-060.020765.97704.11250.0330.200.0032B-196.00E-060.017737.0750132100.0620.170.006Notes:Ground Water Velocity Calculated from Equation:V=KI/nwhereK = Hydraulic Conductivity in ft/dayI = Hydraulic Gradient in units of ft/ftn = Effective Porosity is unitlessV = Ground Water Velocity in ft/dayHydraulic Conductivity Conversion Factor:1 ft/day = 3.59E-04 cm/secEffective Porosity values from published literature (see footnote on Table 3).A-1 Sandrock Design Hydro10/4/2018

ATTACHMENT B
Phase 3 Test Boring Logs

Amec Foster Wheeler
A1 Sandrock Phase 3
Borings Logs
SS-1
SS-2
FILL: Brown-gray, moist, very stiff, sandy SILT (ML), withcobbles-Bulk Sample taken from 1.0 to 6.9 feet.
FILL: Tan-brown, dry, loose, silty, fine to medium SAND(SM) with boulders
Boring terminated at 7.9ft on Fill: Boulder
7-18-8(N = 26)
5-4-5(N = 9)5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)J. HowardCME-550 ATV
HS Augers6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLESN-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
843.1
838.1
833.1
828.1
823.1
818.1
813.1
808.1
803.1
798.1
REMARKS:Bulk sample taken from 1.0 - 7.9ft
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand RockB-30815683.0 US ft1749272.0 US ftFebruary 23, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/16/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
FILL: Gray, brown, moist, stiff, fine to coarse SAND (CL)
RESIDUAL: Gray-orange, very stiff, dry, sandy SILT (ML)
WEATHERED ROCK: Brown-gray, GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 16.0 feet onCRYSTALLINE ROCK: GRANITE
4-6-8(N = 14)
5-10-19(N = 29)
50-50/0.4(N = 100+)
100/0.3(N = 100+)1st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)J. HowardCME-550 ATV
HS Augers6" WELL: Stickup 4.4' Size 2"
Piezometer set to 15.6ft
SAMPLESN-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
789.8
784.8
779.8
774.8
769.8
764.8
759.8
754.8
749.8
744.8
REMARKS:Piezometer screened from 15.6' to 5.6' below surface
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand RockB-31815429.0 US ft1749434.0 US ftFebruary 23, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
RESIDUAL: Gray, orange, orange-red, dry, hard, sandy SILT(ML)-Bulk Sample taken from 1.0 to 7.5 feet.
WEATHERED ROCK: Light tan, GRANITE
CRYSTALLINE ROCK: Gray, GRANITE
Boring terminated with Auger Refusal at 14.6 feet inCRYSTALLINE ROCK: GRANITE
8-13-18(N = 31)
7-10-25(N = 35)
60-40/0.2(N = 100+)
60/0.1(N = 100+)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)J. HowardCME-550 ATV
HS Augers6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLESN-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
802.1
797.1
792.1
787.1
782.1
777.1
772.1
767.1
762.1
757.1
REMARKS:Piezometer dropped in for 24hr water, Bulk sample taken
from 1.0 to 8.5ft
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand RockB-32815822.0 US ft1749472.0 US ftFebruary 22, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 4/16/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
RESIDUAL: Tan-gray, dry, dense, silty, fine SAND (SM),saprolitic
RESIDUAL: Dark gray, green-gray, dry, hard, sandy SILT(ML)
WEATHERED ROCK: Gray DIORITE
Boring terminated with Auger/SPT Refusal at 21.7 feet onCRYSTALLINE ROCK: DIORITE
11-17-18(N = 35)
30-70/0.4(N = 100+)
25-38-51(N = 89)
100/0.4(N = 100+)
100/0.3(N = 100+)
100/0.0(N = 100+)1st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)J. HowardCME-550 ATV
HS Augers6" WELL: Stickup 3.9' Size 2"
Piezometer set to 23.3ft
SAMPLESN-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
807.8
802.8
797.8
792.8
787.8
782.8
777.8
772.8
767.8
762.8
REMARKS:Piezometer screened from 21.3 to 11.3' below surface
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand RockB-33815974.0 US ft1749833.0 US ftFebruary 22, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
FILL: Gray, dry, sandy SILT (ML) to tan-orange, mediumdense, dry, silty, fine SAND (SM)
FILL: Dark gray, moist, medium stiff, sandy CLAY (CL)
RESIDUAL: Gray, brown, orange, dry, hard to very stiff,sandy SILT (ML)
11.0ft: Auger grinding
WEATHERED ROCK: Gray DIORITE
Boring terminated with Auger/SPT Refusal at 25.3 feet onCRYSTALLINE ROCK: DIORITE
6-7-12(N = 19)
9-9-14(N = 23)
10-21-28(N = 49)
8-14-12(N = 26)
3-12-15(N = 27)
100/0.1(N = 100+)
100/0.0(N = 100+)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
401st 6"2nd 6"3rd 6"4th 6"ELEV
(ft)
LL (%)
CONTRACTOR:
LOGGED BY:
EQUIPMENT:
DRILL METHOD:
HOLE DIAMETER:
CLOSURE METHOD:
REVIEWED BY:
PL (%)
Summit D&E Services (M.Mosley)J. HowardCME-550 ATV
HS Augers6"
Back fill with cuttings
SAMPLESN-COUNTorRec%/RQD%TYPE 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAND REMARKS
SOIL TEST BORING RECORD
FINES (%)
SPT (bpf)
LEGENDSEE KEY SYMBOL SHEET FOR EXPLANATION OFSYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS BELOW.
IDENT
0 102030405060708090100
803.8
798.8
793.8
788.8
783.8
778.8
773.8
768.8
763.8
758.8
REMARKS:
NM (%)DEPTH
(ft)
6468-18-8009
THIS RECORD IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT THE EXPLORATION LOCATION. SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND AT OTHER TIMES MAYDIFFER. INTERFACES BEWEEN STRATA ARE APPROXIMATE.TRANSITIONS BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE GRADUAL.
PROJECT:
BORING NO.:
NORTHING:
EASTING:
Drilled:
A1 Sand RockB-34815827.0 US ft1749779.0 US ftFebruary 22, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.:
STATION:
OFFSET:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45STD BORING LOG WITH COORDINATES_AFW A1 SAND ROCK.GPJ AMEC GEO.GDT 3/30/18
David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Engineering and Geology
A1 Sandrock Phase 3
Boring Logs

ATTACHMENT C
Field Hydraulic Conductivity (Slug Tests)

Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
Bouwer and Rice Graph
B-7 falling head
•ffl EC
1 e-oc;
q Hydraulic Condjctivity = 1 197e-005 cm/sec -J Transmissivjty -• 0.407 ft2/day 1
0
Project Number Granite saprolite piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
Bouwer and Rice parameter A = 1.871
Bouwer and Rice parameter B = 0 25
!n(Re/Rw) = 1.657690e+000
Gravel Paclc Porosity = 30 %
Corrected Casing Radius = 3.688 inches
Analysis starts at time 3.996 seconds
Analysis ends at time 60, minutes
1S1 Measurements analyzed from 21 to 211
Adjusted Time (hours)
Ho is 12-81 feet at 3,996 seconds
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
Hvorslev Graph
B-7 falling head
0.37
* 0,1
1 ,e-002
;j Hydrauiic Conductivity = 5 465e-006 cm/sec
Transmissivity = 0 1859 ft2/day
Project Number Granite saprolite piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
Time Lag = 3,567e+004 seconds
Shape Factor = 4,159
Partial Penetration Case B
Analysis starts at time 3,996 seconds
.Analysis ends at time 60, minutes
191 iweasurements analyzed from 21 to 211
Adjusted Time (hours)
Ho is 12,81 feet at 3,996 seconds
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test
Site Name;
Location:
Test Date:
Project Number:
Import File:
A-1 Sandrocl^, Inc. CDLF
Guilford County, NC
05/28/02
Granite saprolite piezometer
A:\B-7
Weil Label: B-7 falling iiead
Aquifer Ttiickness: 12. feet
Screen Length: 5. feet
Casing Radius: 2. inches
Effective Radius: 6. inches
Gravel Pack Porosity: 30. %
Corrected Casing Radius: 3.688 inches
Static Water Level: 10.65 feet
Water Table to Screen Bottom: 9.4 feet
Anisotropy Ratio: 1.
Time Adjustment: 3.996 Seconds
Test starts with trial 20
There are 211 time and drawdown measurements
N/laximum head is 12.81 feet
Minimum head is 0. feet
Trial Time Adjusted Time Drawdown Head Head Ratio
(minutes) (minutes) (feet) (feet)
1 0. -6.66e-002 0. 10.65 0.8315
2 3.3e-003 -6.33e-002 -6.8-003 10.66 0.832
3 6.6e-003 -6.e-002 -6.6-003 10.66 0.832
4 1.e-002 -5.66e-002 -6.e-003 10.66 0.832
5 1.338-002 -5.338-002 -6.e-003 10.66 0.832
6 1.666-002 -5.e-002 -1.26-002 10.66 0.8324
7 2.e-002 -4.668-002 -6.e-003 10.66 0.832
8 2.33e-002 -4.33e-002 -1.28-002 10.66 0.8324
9 2.66e-002 -4.e-002 -6.e-003 10.66 0.832
10 3.e-002 -3.66e-002 -6.6-003 10.66 0.832
11 3.33e-002 -3.33e-002 -0.765 11.42 0.8912
12 3.66e-002 -3.8-002 -1.267 11.92 0.9304
13 4.e-002 -2.66e-002 -0.771 11.42 0.8917
14 4.33e-002 -2.338-002 -0.903 11.55 0.902
15 4.66e-002 -2.8-002 -1.486 12.14 0.9475
16 5.e-002 -1.668-002 -2.007 12.66 0.9882
17 5.33e-002 -1.33e-002 -1.436 12.09 0.9436
18 5.66e-002 -1.e-002 -1.091 11.74 0.9167
19 6.e-002 -6.6e-003 -1.035 11.69 0.9123
20 6.33e-002 -3.3e-003 -1.612 12.26 0.9574
21 6.66e-002 0. -2.158 12.81 1.
22 7.e-002 3.48-003 -1.938 12.59 0.9828
23 7.33e-002 6.7e-003 -1.411 12.06 0.9417
24 7.66e-002 1.8-002 -1.21 11.86 0.926
25 8.e-002 1.34e-002 -1.424 12.07 0.9427
26 8.33e-002 1.678-002 -1.58 12.23 0.9549
27 8.66e-002 2.e-002 -1.191 11.84 0.9245
28 9.8-002 2.348-002 -0.777 11.43 0.8922
29 9.33e-002 2.678-002 -1.21 11.86 0.926
30 9.66e-002 3.e-002 -1.505 12.15 0.949
31 0.1 3.348-002 -1.066 11.72 0.9147
32 0.1033 3.678-002 -0.959 11.61 0.9064
33 0.1066 4.6-002 -1.285 11.94 0.9318
34 0.11 4.346-002 -1.411 12.06 0.9417
35 0.1133 4.676-002 -1.066 11.72 0.9147
36 0.1166 5.6-002 -0.997 11.65 0.9094
37 0.12 5.346-002 -1.21 11.86 0.926
38 0.1233 5.67e-002 -1.311 11.96 0.9339
39 0.1266 6.6-002 -1.147 11.8 0.9211
40 0.13 6.346-002 -0.991 11.64 0.9089
41 0.1333 6.676-002 -1.129 11.78 0.9197
42 0.1366 7.6-002 -1.229 11.88 0.9275
43 0.14 7.346-002 -1.035 11.69 0.9123
44 0.1433 7.676-002 -0.815 11.47 0.8951
45 0.1466 8.6-002 -0.878 11.53 0.9001
46 0.15 8.346-002 -1.053 11.7 0.9137
47 0.1533 8.676-002 -1.16 11.81 0.9221
48 0.1566 9.6-002 -1.009 11.66 0.9103
49 0.16 9.346-002 -1.185 11.84 0.924
50 0.1633 9.676-002 -1.493 12.14 0.9481
51 0.1666 1.6-001 -1.028 11.68 0.9118
52 0.17 0.1034 -0.181 10.83 0.8456
53 0.1733 0.1067 -0.828 11.48 0.8962
54 0.1766 0.11 -1.185 11.84 0.924
55 0.18 0.1134 -1.022 11.67 0.9113
56 0.1833 0.1167 -0.583 11.23 0.877
57 0.1866 0.12 -0.545 11.2 0.8741
58 0.19 0.1234 -1.035 11.69 0.9123
59 0.1933 0.1267 -1.122 11.77 0.9191
60 0.1966 0.13 -0.589 11.24 0.8775
61 0.2 0.1334 0.131 10.52 0.8213
62 0.2033 0.1367 -0.614 11.26 0.8795
63 0.2066 0.14 -1.442 12.09 0.9441
64 0.21 0.1434 -1.725 12.38 0.9662
65 0.2133 0.1467 -1.147 11.8 0.9211
66 0.2166 0.15 -0.275 10.93 0.853
67 0.22 0.1534 -0.445 11.1 0.8663
68 0.2233 0.1567 -0.94 11.59 0.9049
69 0.2266 0.16 -1.091 11.74 0.9167
70 0.23 0.1634 -0.959 11.61 0.9064
71 0.2333 0.1667 -0.683 11.33 0.8848
72 0.2366 0.17 -0.671 11.32 0.8839
73 0.24 0.1734 -0.853 11.5 0.8981
74 0.2433 0.1767 -0.903 11.55 0.902
75 0.2466 0.18 -0.809 11.46 0.8947
76 0.25 0.1834 -0.759 11.41 0.8908
77 0.2533 0.1867 -0.802 11.45 0.8941
78 0.2566 0.19 -0.821 11.47 0.8956
79 0.26 0.1934 -0.796 11.45 0.8937
80 0.2633 0.1967 -0.771 11.42 0.8917
81 0.2666 0.2 -0.784 11.43 0.8927
82 0.27 0.2034 -0.79 11.44 0.8932
83 0.2733 0.2067 -0.777 11.43 0.8922
84 0.2766 0.21 -0.765 11.42 0.8912
85 0.28 0.2134 -0.771 11.42 0.8917
86 0.2833 0.2167 -0.771 11.42 0.8917
87 0.2866 0.22 -0.759 11.41 0.8908
88 0.29 0.2234 -0.752 11.4 0.8902
89 0.2933 0.2267 -0.752 11.4 0.8902
90 0.2966 0.23
91 0.3 0.2334
92 0.3033 0.2367
93 0.3066 024
94 0.31 0.2434
95 0.3133 0.2467
96 0.3166 0.25
97 0.32 0.2534
98 0.3233 0.2567
99 0.3266 0.26
100 0.33 0.2634
101 0.3333 0.2667
102 0.35 0.2834
103 0.3666 0.3
104 0.3833 0.3167
105 0.4 0.3334
106 0.4166 0.35
107 0.4333 0.3667
108 0.45 0.3834
109 0.4666 0.4
110 0.4833 0.4167
111 0.5 0.4334
112 0.5166 0.45
113 0.5333 0.4667
114 0.55 0.4834
115 0.5666 0.5
116 0.5833 0.5167
117 0.6 0.5334
118 0.6166 0.55
119 0.6333 0.5667
120 0.65 0.5834
121 0.6666 0.6
122 0.6833 0.6167
123 0.7 0.6334
124 0.7166 0.65
125 0.7333 0.6667
126 0.75 0.6834
127 0.7666 0.7
128 0.7833 0.7167
129 0.8 0.7334
130 0.8166 0.75
131 0.8333 0.7667
132 0.85 0.7834
133 0.8666 0.8
134 0.8833 0.8167
135 0.9 0.8334
136 0.9166 0.85
137 0.9333 0.8667
138 0.95 0.8834
139 0.9666 0.9
140 0.9833 0.9167
141 1. 0.9334
142 1.2 1.133
143 1.4 1.333
144 1.6 1.533
145 1.8 1.733
146 2. 1.933
-0.752 11.4 0.8902
-0.752 11.4 0.8902
-0.727 11.38 0.8883
-0.733 11.38 0.8887
-0.74 11.39 0.8893
-0.74 11.39 0.8893
-0.721 11.37 0.8878
-0.721 11.37 0.8878
-0.721 11.37 0.8878
-0.715 11.37 0.8873
-0.708 11.36 0.8868
-0.708 11.36 0.8868
-0.715 11.37 0.8873
-0.664 11.31 0.8834
-0.658 11.31 0.8829
-0.639 11.29 0.8814
-0.633 11.28 0.8809
-0.633 11.28 0.8809
-0.627 11.28 0.8805
-0.627 11.28 0.8805
-0.62 11.27 0.8799
-0.62 11.27 0.8799
-0.62 11.27 0.8799
-0.614 11.26 0.8795
-0.614 11.26 0.8795
-0.614 11.26 0.8795
-0.608 11.26 0.879
-0.608 11.26 0.879
-0.602 11.25 0.8785
-0.589 11.24 0.8775
-0.608 11.26 0.879
-0.595 11.25 0.878
-0.595 11.25 0.878
-0.595 11.25 0.878
-0.595 11.25 0.878
-0.589 11.24 0.8775
-0.589 11.24 0.8775
-0.583 11.23 0.877
-0.564 11.21 0.8755
-0.545 11.2 0.8741
-0.583 11.23 0.877
-0.583 11.23 0.877
-0.577 11.23 0.8766
-0.577 11.23 0.8766
-0.57 11.22 0.876
-0.57 11.22 0.876
-0.57 11.22 0.876
-0.57 11.22 0.876
-0.564 11.21 0.8755
-0.564 11.21 0.8755
-0.564 11.21 0.8755
-0.558 11.21 0.8751
-0.533 11.18 0.8731
-0.514 11.16 0.8716
-0.495 11.15 0.8702
-0.482 11.13 0.8691
-0.464 11.11 0.8677
147 2.2 2.133
148 2.4 2.333
149 2.6 2.533
150 2.8 2.733
151 3. 2.933
152 3.2 3.133
153 3.4 3.333
154 3.6 3.533
155 3.8 3.733
156 4. 3.933
157 4.2 4.133
158 4.4 4.333
159 4.6 4,533
160 4.8 4.733
161 5. 4.933
162 5.2 5.133
163 5.4 5.333
164 5.6 5.533
165 5.8 5.733
166 6. 5.933
167 6.2 6.133
168 64 6.333
169 6.6 6.533
170 68 6.733
171 7. 6.933
172 7.2 7.133
173 7.4 7.333
174 7.6 7.533
175 7.8 7.733
176 8. 7.933
177 8.2 8.133
178 8.4 8.333
179 8.6 8.533
180 8.8 8.733
181 9. 8.933
182 9.2 9.133
183 9.4 9.333
184 9.6 9.533
185 9.8 9.733
188 10. 9.933
187 12. 11.93
188 14. 13.93
189 16 15.93
190 18. 17.93
191 20. 19.93
1^ 22. 21.93
193 24. 23.93
194 26. 25.93
195 28. 27.93
196 30. 29.93
197 32. 31.93
198 34. 33.93
199 36. 35.93
200 38. 37.93
201 40. 39.93
202 42. 41.93
203 44. 43.93
-0.445 11.1 0.8663
-0.439 11.09 0.8658
-0.426 11.08 0.8648
-0.413 11.06 0.8638
-0.401 11.05 0.8628
-0.388 11.04 0.8618
-0.376 11.03 0.8609
-0.363 11.01 0.8599
-0.351 11. 0.8589
-0.344 10.99 0.8584
-0.332 10.98 0.8574
-0.326 10.98 0.857
-0.319 10.97 0.8564
-0.307 10.96 0.8555
-0.301 10.95 0.855
-0.301 10.95 0.855
-0.301 10.95 0.855
-0.301 10.95 0.855
-0.301 10.95 0.855
-0.294 10.94 0.8545
-0.294 10.94 0.8545
-0.294 10.94 0.8545
-0.288 10.94 0.854
-0.288 10.94 0.854
-0.288 10.94 0.854
-0.282 10.93 0.8535
-0.282 10.93 0.8535
-0.282 10.93 0.8535
-0.275 10.93 0.853
-0.275 10.93 0.853
-0.269 10.92 0.8525
-0.269 10.92 0.8525
-0.269 10.92 0.8525
-0.263 10.91 0.852
-0.263 10.91 0.852
-0.263 10.91 0.852
-0.263 10.91 0.852
-0.257 10.91 0.8516
-0.257 10.91 0.8516
-0.257 10.91 0.8516
-0.238 10.89 0.8501
-0.225 10.88 0.8491
-0.213 10.86 0.8481
-0.206 10.86 0.8476
-0.2 10.85 0.8471
-0.188 10.84 0.8462
-0.181 10.83 0.8456
-0.175 10.83 0.8452
-0.169 10.82 0.8447
-0.163 10.81 0.8442
-0.156 10.81 0.8437
-0.15 10.8 0.8432
-0.15 10.8 0.8432
-0.144 10.79 0.8428
-0.137 10.79 0.8422
-0.131 10.78 0.8417
-0.131 10.78 0.8417
204 46. 45.93
205 48. 47.93
206 50. 49.93
207 52. 51.93
208 54. 53.93
209 56. 55.93
210 58. 57.93
211 60. 59.93
-0.119 10.77 0.8408
-0.112 10.76 0.8403
-0.112 10.76 0.8403
-0.106 10.76 0.8398
-0.1 10.75 0.8393
-9.4e-002 10.74 0.8389
-9.4e-002 10.74 0.8389
-8.7e-002 10.74 0.8383
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
Bouwer and Rice Graph
B-18 falling head
°
a:
Bouwer and Rice parameter C = 1.586
ln(Re/Rw) = 2-2192726+000
Gravel Pack Porosity = 30 %
Corrected Casing Radius = 3.688 inches
Analysis starts at time 3.798 seconds
Analysis ends at time 60, minutes
192 IWeasurements analyzed from 20 to 211
Hydraulic Conductivity = 1,372e-006 cm/sec
Transmissivity = 3,8lie-002 ft2/day
Project Number Granite saprolite piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
Adjusted Time (tiours)
Ho is 25,51 feet at 3,798 seconds
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
Hvorslev Graph
B-18 falling head
0.37
0.1 —
1.S-002
; Hydraulic Conductivity = 6,101e-007 cm/sec
- Transmissivity = 1.695e-002 ft2/day
Time Lag = 2,107e+005 seconds
Siiape Factor = S,308
Partial Penetration Case C
Analysis starts at time 3.798 seconds
.Analysis ends at time 60. m.inutes
192 Measurements analyzed from 20 to 211
Project Number Granite saprolite piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
Adjusted Time (hours)
Ho is 25.51 feet at 3 798 seconds
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test
Site Name:
Location:
Test Date:
Project Number:
Import File:
A-1 Sandrocit, inc. CDLF
Guilford County, NC
05/28/02
Granite saprolite piezometer
A:\B-18
Well Label:
Aquifer Thickness:
Screen Length:
Casing Radius:
Effective Radius:
Gravel Pack Porosity:
Corrected Casing Radius:
Static Water Level:
Water Table to Screen Bottom:
Anisotropy Ratio:
Time Adjustment:
Test starts with trial 19
There are 211 time and drawdown measurements
Maximum head is 25.51 feet
Minimum head is 0. feet
B-18 falling head
9.8 feet
10. feet
2. inches
6. inches
30. %
3.688 inches
22.09 feet
9.8 feet
1.
3.798 Seconds
Trial Time Adjusted Time Drawdown Head Head Ratio
(minutes) (minutes) (feet) (feet)
1 0. -6.33e-002 -1.26-002 22.1 0.8664
2 3.3e-003 -6.6-002 -1.26-002 22.1 0.8664
3 6.6e-003 -5.676-002 -1.86-002 22.11 0.8667
4 1.e-002 -5.336-002 -2.5e-002 22.11 0.8669
5 1.33e-002 -5.6-002 -1.8e-002 22.11 0.8667
6 1.66e-002 -4.676-002 -6.6-003 22.1 0.8662
7 2.e-002 -4.336-002 -3.16-002 22.12 0.8672
8 2.33e-002 -4.6-002 -6.6-003 22.1 0.8662
9 2.66e-002 -3.676-002 0. 22.09 0.866
10 3.e-002 -3.33e-002 -1.26-002 22.1 0.8664
11 3.33e-002 -3.6-002 -4.3e-002 22.13 0.8677
12 3.66e-002 -2.676-002 2.56-002 22.06 0.865
13 4.e-002 -2.33e-002 -3.16-002 22.12 0.8672
14 4.33e-002 -2.6-002 -1.26-002 22.1 0.8664
15 4.66e-002 -1.676-002 -1.2e-002 22.1 0.8664
16 5.e-002 -1.33e-002 -1.86-002 22.11 0.8667
17 5.33e-002 -1.e-002 -5.6e-002 22.15 0.8682
18 5.66e-002 -6.76-003 -5.6-002 22.14 0.8679
19 6.e-002 -3,3e-003 -0.978 23.07 0.9043
20 6.33e-002 0. -3.419 25.51 1.
21 6.66e-002 3.36-003 -2.835 24.92 0.9771
22 7.e-002 6.7e-003 -1.373 23.46 0.9198
23 7.336-002 1.6-002 -0.188 22.28 0.8733
24 7.666-002 1.336-002 -1.348 23.44 0.9188
25 8.6-002 1.67e-002 -1.856 23.95 0.9387
26 8.336-002 2.6-002 -1.43 23.52 0.922
27 8.66e-002 2.336-002 -0.602 22.69 0.8896
28 9.6-002 2.676-002 -1.097 23.19 0.909
29 9.336-002 3.e-002 -1.292 23.38 0.9166
6/13/2002
30 9.66e-002 3.33e-002 -1.003 23.09 0.9053
31 0.1 3.67e-002 -0.551 22.64 0.8876
32 0.1033 4.6-002 0.852 21.24 0.8326
33 0.1066 4.336-002 0.137 21.95 0.8606
34 0.11 4.676-002 -0.972 23.06 0.9041
35 0.1133 5.6-002 -1.122 23.21 0.91
36 0.1166 5.336-002 7.56-002 22.02 0.863
37 0.12 5.676-002 0.52 21.57 0.8456
38 0.1233 6.6-002 -0.602 22.69 0.8896
39 0.1266 6.336-002 -0.326 22.42 0.8787
40 0.13 6.676-002 -9.46-002 22.18 0.8697
41 0.1333 7.6-002 -0.395 22.48 0.8815
42 0.1366 7.336-002 -0.232 22.32 0.8751
43 0.14 7.676-002 -0.188 22.28 0.8733
44 0.1433 8.6-002 0.382 21.71 0.851
45 0.1466 8.336-002 0.42 21.67 0.8495
46 0.15 8.676-002 -0.52 22.61 0.8864
47 0.1533 9.6-002 -0.878 22.97 0.9004
48 0.1566 9.336-002 -0.426 22.52 0.8827
49 0.16 9.676-002 0. 22.09 0.866
50 0.1633 0.1 -0.282 22.37 0.877
51 0.1666 0.1033 -0.326 22.42 0.8787
52 0.17 0.1067 -0.269 22.36 0.8765
53 0.1733 0.11 -0.344 22.43 0.8795
54 0.1766 0.1133 -0.294 22.38 0.8775
55 0.18 0.1167 -0.213 22.3 0.8743
56 0.1833 0.12 -0.294 22.38 0.8775
57 0.1866 0.1233 -0.301 22.39 0.8778
58 0.19 0.1267 -0.269 22.36 0.8765
59 0.1933 0.13 -0.263 22.35 0.8763
60 0.1966 0.1333 -0.294 22.38 0.8775
61 0.2 0.1367 -0.288 22.38 0.8773
62 0.2033 0.14 -0.275 22.36 0.8757
63 0.2066 0.1433 -0.275 22.36 0.8767
64 0.21 0.1467 -0.282 22.37 0.877
65 0.2133 0.15 -0.282 22.37 0.877
66 0.2166 0.1533 -0.275 22.36 0.8767
67 0.22 0.1567 -0.282 22.37 0.877
68 0.2233 0.16 -0.282 22.37 0.877
69 0.2266 0.1633 -0.275 22.36 0.8767
70 0.23 0.1667 -0.282 22.37 0.877
71 0.2333 0.17 -0.288 22,38 0.8773
72 0.2366 0.1733 -0.275 22.36 0.8767
73 0.24 0.1767 -0.282 22.37 0.877
74 0.2433 0.18 -0.282 22.37 0.877
75 0.2466 0.1833 -0.282 22.37 0.877
76 0.25 0.1867 -0.282 22.37 0.877
77 0.2533 0.19 -0.282 22.37 0.877
78 0.2566 0.1933 -0.282 22.37 0.877
79 0.26 0.1967 -0.282 22.37 0.877
80 0.2633 0.2 -0.275 22.36 0.8767
81 0.2666 0.2033 -0.282 22.37 0.877
82 0.27 0.2067 -0.282 22.37 0.877
83 0.2733 0.21 -0.282 22.37 0.877
6/13/2002
84 0.2766
8S 0.28
86 0.2833
87 0.2866
88 0.29
89 0.2933
90 0.2966
91 0.3
92 0.3033
93 0.3066
94 0.31
95 0.3133
96 0.3166
97 0.32
98 0.3233
9d 0.3266
100 0.33
101 0.3333
102 0.35
103 0.3666
104 0.3833
105 0.4
106 0.4166
107 0.4333
108 0.45
109 0.4666
110 0.4833
111 0.5
112 0.5166
113 0.5333
114 0.55
115 0.5666
116 0.5833
117 0.6
118 0.6166
119 0.6333
120 0.65
121 0.6666
122 0.6833
123 0.7
124 0.7166
125 0.7333
126 0.75
127 0.7666
128 0.7833
129 0.8
130 0.8166
131 0.8333
132 0.85
133 0.8666
134 0.8833
135 0.9
136 0.9166
137 0.9333
0.2133 -0.282
0.2167 -0.275
0.22 -0.275
0.2233 -0.338
0.2267 -0.595
0.23 -0.144
0.2333 8.1e-002
0.2367 -0.413
0.24 -0.482
0.2433 -0.163
0.2467 -0.169
0.25 -0.357
0.2533 -0.344
0.2567 -0.213
0.26 -0.263
0.2633 -0.319
0.2667 -0.294
0.27 -0.257
0.2867 -0.282
0.3033 -0.282
0.32 -0.275
0.3367 -0.275
0.3533 -0.282
0.37 -0.282
0.3867 -0.282
0.4033 -0.275
0.42 -0.275
0.4367 -0.282
0.4533 -0.275
0.47 -0.275
0.4867 -0.275
0.5033 -0.282
0.52 -0.282
0.5367 -0.275
0.5533 -0.275
0.57 -0.282
0.5867 -0.282
0.6033 -0.275
0.62 -0.275
0.6367 -0.275
0.6533 -0.275
0.67 -0.263
0.6867 -0.275
0.7033 -0.275
0.72 -0.275
0.7367 -0.275
0.7533 -0.275
0.77 -0.275
0.7867 -0.275
0.8033 -0.275
0.82 -0.275
0.8367 -0.275
0.8533 -0.275
0.87 -0.275
22.37 0.877
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.43 0.8792
22.68 0.8893
22.23 0.8716
22.01 0.8628
22.5 0.8822
22.57 0.8849
22.25 0.8724
22.26 0.8726
22.45 0.88
22.43 0.8795
22.3 0.8743
22.35 0.8763
22.41 0.8785
22.38 0.8775
22.35 0.876
22.37 0.877
22.37 0.877
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.37 0.877
22.37 0.877
22.37 0.877
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.37 0.877
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.37 0.877
22.37 0.877
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.37 0.877
22.37 0.877
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.35 0.8763
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0,8767
22.36 0.8767
22.36 0.8767
6/13/2002
138 0.95 0.8867
139 0.9666 0.9033
140 0.9833 0.92
141 1. 0.9367
142 1.2 1.137
143 1.4 1.337
144 1.6 1.537
145 1.8 1.737
146 2. 1.937
147 2.2 2.137
148 2.4 2.337
149 2.6 2.537
150 2.8 2.737
151 3. 2.937
152 3.2 3.137
153 3.4 3.337
154 3.6 3.537
155 3.8 3.737
156 4. 3.937
157 4.2 4.137
158 4.4 4.337
159 4.6 4.537
160 4.8 4.737
161 5. 4.937
162 5.2 5.137
163 5.4 5.337
164 5.6 5.537
165 5.8 5.737
166 6. 5.937
167 62 6.137
168 6.4 6.337
169 6.6 6.537
170 6.8 6.737
171 7. 6.937
172 7.2 7.137
173 7.4 7.337
174 7.6 7.537
175 7.8 7.737
176 8. 7.937
177 8.2 6137
178 8.4 8.337
179 8.6 6537
180 8.8 8.737
181 9. 8.937
182 9.2 9.137
183 9.4 9.337
184 9.6 9.537
185 9.8 9.737
186 10. 9.937
187 12. 11.94
188 14. 13.94
189 16 15.94
190 18. 17.94
191 20. 19.94
-0.275 22.36 0.8767
-0.275 22.36 0.8767
-0.275 22.36 0.8767
-0.275 22.36 0.8767
-0.275 22.36 0.8767
-0.275 22.36 0.8767
-0.269 22.36 0.8765
-0.269 22.36 0.8765
-0.269 22.36 0.8765
-0.269 22.36 0.8765
-0.269 22.36 0.8765
-0.263 22.35 0.8763
-0.263 22.35 0.8763
-0.263 22.35 0.8763
-0.263 22.35 0.8763
-0.263 22.35 0.8763
-0.263 22.35 0.8763
-0.257 22.35 0.876
-0.257 22.35 0.876
-0.257 22.35 0.876
-0.257 22.35 0.876
-0.257 22.35 0.876
-0.257 22.35 0.876
-0.25 22.34 0.8758
-0.25 22.34 0.8758
-0.257 22.35 0.876
-0,25 22.34 0.8758
-0.25 22.34 0.8758
-0.25 22.34 0.8758
-0.25 22.34 0.8758
-0.25 22.34 0.8758
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.244 22,33 0.8755
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.244 22.33 0.8755
-0.238 22.33 0.8753
-0.238 22.33 0.8753
-0,238 22.33 0.8753
-0.238 22.33 0.8753
-0.238 22.33 0.8753
-0.232 22.32 0.8751
-0.232 22.32 0.8751
-0.232 22.32 0.8751
-0.232 22.32 0.8751
-0.219 22.31 0.8746
-0.213 22.3 0.8743
-0.206 22.3 0.874
-0.2 22.29 0.8738
-0.194 22.28 0.8736
6/13/2002
192 22. 21.94
193 24. 23.94
194 26. 25.94
1% 28. 27.94
196 30. 29.94
197 32. 31.94
198 34. 33.94
199 36. 35.94
200 38. 37.94
201 40. 39.94
202 42. 41.94
203 44. 43.94
204 46. 45.94
205 48. 47.94
206 50. 49.94
207 52. 51.94
208 54. 53.94
209 56. 55.94
210 58. 57.94
211 60. 59.94
-0.188 22.28 0.8733
-0.181 22.27 0.8731
-0.175 22.26 0.8728
-0.169 22.26 0.8726
-0.175 22.26 0.8728
-0.163 22.25 0.8724
-0.156 22.25 0.8721
-0.15 22.24 0.8718
-0.144 22.23 0.8716
-0.144 22.23 0.8716
-0.144 22.23 0.8716
-0.144 22.23 0.8716
-0.131 22.22 0.8711
-0.125 22.21 0.8709
-0.119 22.21 0.8706
-0.119 22.21 0.8706
-0.112 22.2 0.8704
-0.112 22.2 0.8704
-0.106 22.2 0.8701
-0.112 22.2 0.8704
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
Bouwer and Rice Graph
B-19 falling head
S 0.1 _
rs-002
Hydraulic Conductivity = 6 003e-006 cm/sec
Transmissivity = 0.8508 ft2/day
Bouwer and Rice parameter A = 1 871
Bouwer and Rice parameter B = 0.25
ln(Re/Rw) = 1.807660e+000
Gravel Pack Porosity = 30, %
Corrected Casing Radius = 3,688 incties
.Analysis starts at li.me 3,198 seconds
Analysis ends at time 62. minutes
196 Measurements analyzed from 17 to 212
Project Number Granite bedrock piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
1
Adjusted Time (hours)
Ho is A3.94 feet at 3.198 seconds
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
Hvorslev Graph
B-19 falling head
0.37
0,1 —
1 ,e-002
Time Lag = 8,233e+004 seconds
Shape Factor = 4 159
Partiai Penetration Case B
Analysis starts at time 3,198 seconds
Analysis ends at time 62, minutes
196 Measurements analyzed from 17 to 212
Hydraulic Conductivity = 2 368e-006 cm.^'sec
Transmissivity = 0 3356 ft2/day
Project Number Granite bedrock piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
1
Adjusted Time (hours)
Ho is 43.94 feet at 3.198 seconds
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test
Site Name:
Location:
Test Date:
Project Number:
Import File:
A-1 Sandrocl<, Inc. CDLF
Guilford County, NC
05/28/02
Granite bedrock piezometer
A:\B-19
Well Label:
Aquifer Ttiickness:
Screen Lengtti:
Casing Radius:
Effective Radius:
Gravel Pack Porosity:
Con-ected Casing Radius:
Static Water Level:
Water Table to Screen Bottom:
Anisotropy Ratio:
Time Adjustment:
Test starts witti trial 16
Ttiere are 212 time and drawdown measurements
Maximum tiead is 43.94 feet
Minimum head is 0. feet
B-19 falling head
50. feet
5. feet
2. inches
6. inches
30. %
3.688 inches
39.68 feet
28.5 feet
1.
3.198 Seconds
Trial Time Adjusted Time Drawdown Head Head Ratio
(minutes) (minutes) (feet) (feet)
1 0. -5.33e-002 0. 39.68 0.9031
2 3.3e-003 -5.e-002 0. 39.68 0.9031
3 6.6e-003 -4.67e-002 -6.e-003 39.69 0.9032
4 1 .e-002 -4.33e-002 -6.e-003 39.69 0.9032
5 1.33e-002 -4.e-002 6.e-003 39.67 0.9029
6 1.66e-002 -3.67e-002 -6.e-003 39.69 0.9032
7 2.e-002 -3.33e-002 -6.e-003 39.69 0.9032
8 2.33e-002 -3.e-002 0. 39.68 0.9031
9 2.66e-002 -2.67e-002 -1.2e-002 39.69 0.9033
10 3.e-002 -2.33e-002 6.e-003 39.67 0.9029
11 3.33e-002 -2.e-002 -1.2e-002 39.69 0.9033
12 3.66e-002 -1.67e-002 -2.5e-002 39.7 0.9036
13 4.e-002 -1.33e-002 1.2e-002 39.67 0.9028
14 4.33e-002 -1 .e-002 -3.1 e-002 39.71 0.9038
15 4.66e-002 -6.7e-003 -6.2e-002 39.74 0.9045
16 5. e-002 -3.3e-003 0. 39.68 0.9031
17 5.33e-002 0. -4.259 43.94 1.
18 5.66e-002 3.3e-003 -1.117 40.8 0.9285
19 6.e-002 6.7e-003 0.646 39.03 0.8884
20 6.33e-002 1.e-002 -3.298 42.98 0.9781
21 6.66e-002 1.33e-002 -2.87 42.55 0.9684
22 7. e-002 1.67e-002 -3.046 42.73 0.9724
23 7.33e-002 2.e-002 -2.996 42.68 0.9713
24 7.66e-002 2.33e-002 -2.594 42.27 0.9621
25 8. e-002 2.67e-002 -2.996 42.68 0.9713
26 8.33e-002 3.e-002 -3.128 42.81 0.9743
27 8.66e-002 3.33e-002 -2.895 42.58 0.969
28 9.e-002 3.67e-002 -2.958 42.64 0.9704
29 9.33e-002 4.e-002 -2.883 42.56 0.9687
6/13/2002
30 9.66e-002 4.33e-002 -2.33 42.01 0.9561
31 0,1 4.676-002 -2.732 42.41 0.9652
32 0.1033 5.6-002 -2.173 41.85 0.9525
33 0.1066 5.336-002 -2.198 41.88 0.9531
34 0.11 5.676-002 -2.236 41.92 0.954
35 0.1133 6.6-002 -2.38 42.06 0.9572
36 0.1166 6.336-002 -1.771 41.45 0.9434
37 0.12 6.676-002 -1.903 41.58 0.9464
38 0.1233 7.6-002 -2.883 42.56 0.9687
39 0.1266 7.336-002 -2.87 42.55 0.9684
40 0.13 7.676-002 -2.977 42.66 0.9708
41 0.1333 8,6-002 -3.059 42.74 0.9727
42 0.1366 8.336-002 -2.895 42.58 0.969
43 0.14 8.676-002 -2.217 41,9 0.9535
44 0.1433 9.6-002 -2.21 41.89 0.9534
45 0.1466 9.336-002 -1.048 40.73 0.9269
46 0.15 9.676-002 -1.4 41.08 0.9349
47 0.1533 1.6-001 -2.474 42.15 0.9594
48 0.1566 0.1033 -2,701 42.38 0.9645
49 0.16 0.1067 -2.286 41.97 0.9551
50 0.1633 0.11 -1.852 41.53 0.9452
51 0.1666 0.1133 -1.846 41.53 0.9451
52 0.17 0.1167 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
53 0.1733 0.12 -2.267 41.95 0.9547
54 0.1766 0.1233 -2.16 41.84 0.9522
55 0.18 0.1267 -2.066 41.75 0.9501
56 0.1833 0.13 -2.066 41.75 0.9501
57 0.1866 0.1333 -2.104 41.78 0.951
58 0.19 0.1367 -2.104 41.78 0.951
59 0.1933 0.14 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
60 0.1966 0.1433 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
61 0.2 0.1467 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
62 0.2033 0.15 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
63 0.2066 0.1533 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
64 0.21 0.1567 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
65 0.2133 0.16 -2.104 41.78 0.951
66 0.2166 0.1633 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
67 0.22 0.1667 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
68 0.2233 0.17 -2.097 41.78 0.9508
69 0.2266 0.1733 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
70 0.23 0.1767 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
71 0.2333 0.18 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
72 0.2366 0.1833 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
73 0.24 0,1867 -2.091 41.77 0,9507
74 0.2433 0.19 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
75 0.2466 0.1933 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
76 0.25 0.1967 -2.085 41.77 0.9505
77 0.2533 0.2 -2.085 41.77 0,9505
78 0.2566 0.2033 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
79 0.26 0.2067 -2.091 41.77 0.9507
80 0.2633 0.21 -2.085 41.77 0.9505
81 0.2666 0.2133 -2.085 41.77 0.9505
82 0.27 0.2167 -2.079 41.76 0.9504
83 0.2733 0.22 -2.085 41.77 0.9505
6/13/2002
84 0.2766 0.2233
85 0.28 0.2267
86 0.2833 0.23
87 0.2866 0.2333
88 0.29 0.2367
89 0.2933 0.24
90 0.2966 0.2433
91 0.3 0.2467
92 0.3033 0.25
93 0.3066 0.2533
94 0.31 0.2567
95 0.3133 0.26
96 0.3166 0.2633
97 0.32 0.2667
98 0.3233 0.27
99 0.3266 0.2733
100 0.33 0.2767
101 0.3333 0.28
102 0.35 0.2967
103 0.3666 0.3133
104 0.3833 0.33
105 0.4 0.3467
106 0.4166 0.3633
107 0.4333 0.38
108 0.45 0.3967
109 0.4666 0.4133
110 0.4833 0.43
111 0.5 0.4467
112 0.5166 0.4633
113 0.5333 0.48
114 0.55 0.4967
115 0.5666 0.5133
116 0.5833 0.53
117 0.6 0.5467
118 ^ 0.6166 0.5633
119 0.6333 0.58
120 0.65 0.5967
121 0.6666 0.6133
122 0.6833 0.63
123 0.7 0.6467
124 0.7166 0.6633
125 0.7333 0.68
126 0.75 0.6967
127 0.7666 0.7133
128 0.7833 0.73
129 0.8 0.7467
130 0.8166 0.7633
131 0.8333 0.78
132 0.85 0.7967
133 0.8666 0.8133
134 0.8833 0.83
135 0.9 0.8467
136 0.9166 0.8633
137 0.9333 0.88
-2.079 41.76 0.9504
-2.085 41.77 0,9505
-2.085 41.77 0.9505
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.079 41.76 0.9504
-2.079 41.76 0.9504
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.072 41.75 0.9502
-2.066 41.75 0.9501
-2.066 41.75 0.9501
-2.066 41.75 0.9501
-2.066 41.75 0.9501
-2.06 41.74 0.95
-2.06 41.74 0.95
-2.053 41.73 0.9498
-2.053 41.73 0.9498
-2.047 41.73 0.9497
-2.047 41.73 0.9497
-2.041 41.72 0.9495
-2.041 41.72 0.9495
-2.041 41.72 0.9495
-2.035 41.72 0.9494
-2.035 41.72 0.9494
-2.035 41.72 0.9494
-2.028 41.71 0.9492
-2.047 41.73 0.9497
-2.022 41.7 0.9491
-2.022 41.7 0.9491
-2.016 41.7 0.949
-2.016 41.7 0.949
-2.016 41.7 0.949
-2.009 41.69 0.9488
-2.009 41.69 0.9488
-2.009 41.69 0.9488
-2.003 41.68 0.9487
-2.003 41.68 0.9487
-2.003 41.68 0.9487
-1.997 41.68 0.9485
-1.997 41.68 0.9485
-1.997 41.68 0.9485
-1.991 41.67 0.9484
-1.997 41.68 0.9485
-1.991 41.67 0.9484
-1.991 41.67 0.9484
-1.984 41.66 0.9482
-1.984 41.66 0.9482
-1.978 41.66 0.9481
-1.978 41.66 0.9481
6/13/2002
138 0.95 0.8967
139 0.9666 0.9133
140 0.9833 0.93
141 1. 0.9467
142 1.2 1.147
143 1.4 1.347
144 1.6 1.547
145 1.8 1.747
146 2. 1.947
147 2.2 2.147
148 2.4 2.347
149 2.6 2.547
150 2.8 2.747
151 3. 2.947
152 3.2 3.147
153 3.4 3.347
154 3.6 3.547
155 3.8 3.747
156 4. 3.947
157 4.2 4.147
158 4.4 4.347
159 4.6 4.547
160 4.8 4.747
161 5. 4.947
162 5.2 5.147
163 5.4 5.347
164 5.6 5.547
165 5.8 5.747
166 6. 5.947
167 62 6147
168 6.4 6.347
169 6.6 6.547
170 68 6.747
171 7. 6.947
172 7.2 7.147
173 7.4 7.347
174 7.6 7.547
175 7.8 7.747
176 8. 7.947
177 8.2 6147
178 8,4 8.347
179 66 8.547
180 68 8.747
181 9. 8.947
182 9.2 9.147
183 9.4 9.347
184 9.6 9.547
185 9.8 9.747
186 10. 9.947
187 12. 11.95
188 14. 13.95
189 16 15.95
190 18. 17.95
191 20. 19.95
-1.978 41.66 0.9481
-1.972 41.65 0.948
-1.972 41.65 0.948
-1.972 41.65 0.948
-1.947 41.63 0.9474
-1.921 41.6 0.9468
-1.903 41.58 0.9464
-1.89 41.57 0.9461
-1.877 41.56 0.9458
-1.859 41.54 0.9454
-1,846 41.53 0.9451
-1.834 41.51 0.9448
-1,821 41.5 0.9445
-1.808 41.49 0.9442
-1.796 41.48 0.9439
-1.79 41.47 0.9438
-1.777 41.46 0.9435
-1.764 41.44 0.9432
-1.752 41.43 0.9429
-1.746 41.43 0.9428
-1.733 41.41 0.9425
-1.727 41.41 0.9424
-1.72 41.4 0.9422
-1.708 41.39 0.9419
-1.702 41.38 0.9418
-1.689 41.37 0.9415
-1.683 41.36 0.9414
-1.676 41.36 0.9412
-1.67 41.35 0.9411
-1.664 41.34 0.9409
-1.658 41.34 0.9408
-1.645 41.32 0.9405
-1.639 41.32 0.9404
-1.632 41.31 0.9402
-1.626 41.31 0.9401
-1.62 41.3 0.9399
-1.614 41.29 0.9398
-1.607 41.29 0.9396
-1.595 41.27 0.9394
-1.595 41.27 0.9394
-1.589 41.27 0.9392
-1.582 41.26 0.9391
-1.57 41.25 0.9388
-1.57 41.25 0.9388
-1.563 41.24 0.9386
-1.557 41.24 0.9385
-1.551 41.23 0.9384
-1.545 41.23 0.9382
-1.538 41.22 0.9381
-1.475 41.16 0.9366
-1.425 41.1 0.9355
-1.381 41.06 0.9345
-1.331 41.01 0.9334
-1.293 40.97 0.9325
6/13/2002
192 22. 21.95 -1.249 40.93 0.9315
193 24. 23.95 -1.212 40.89 0.9307
194 26. 25.95 -1.174 40.85 0.9298
195 28. 27.95 -1.136 40.82 0.9289
196 30. 29.95 -1.105 40.78 0.9282
197 32. 31.95 -1.073 40.75 0.9275
198 34. 33.95 -1.042 40.72 0.9268
199 36. 35.95 -1.011 40.69 0.9261
200 38. 37.95 -0.979 40.66 0.9254
201 40. 39.95 -0.954 40.63 0.9248
202 42. 41.95 -0.923 40.6 0.9241
203 44. 43.95 -0.898 40.58 0.9235
204 46. 45.95 -0.872 40.55 0.9229
205 48. 47.95 -0.841 40.52 0.9222
206 50. 49.95 -0.822 40.5 0.9218
207 52. 51.95 -0.797 40.48 0.9212
208 54. 53.95 -0.772 40.45 0.9206
209 56. 55.95 -0.753 40.43 0.9202
210 58. 57.95 -0.728 40.41 0.9196
211 60. 59.95 -0.709 40.39 0.9192
212 62. 61.95 -0.69 40.37 0.9188
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
.2
1 s-302.
Hydraulic Conductivity = 7 l43e-006 cm/sec
Transmissivity = 0.324 ft2.'day
Bouwer and Rice Graph
B-21 falling head
Bouwer and Rice parameter C = 1.5
ln(Re/Rw) = 2.516401e+000
Gravel Pac!< Porosity = 30 %
Corrected Casing Radius = 3.688 inclies
Analysis starts at time 6,396 seconds
Analysis ends at time 50, minutes
174 Measurements analyzed from 33 to 206
1 1 1 1
25 30 35 40 46
Adjusted Time (mtnutes)
Ho is 47.14 feet at 6.396 seconds
20
Project Number Granite saprolite piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test 05/28/02
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF Guilford County, NC
Hvorslev Graph
B-21 falling head
0.37
1, e-002
Hydraulic Conductivity = 2.587e-006 cm/sec
Transmissivity = 0 1173 ft2/day
10
Time Lag = 4 903e+004 seconds
Shape Factor = 6 393
Partiai Penetration Case B
Analysis starts at time 6.396 seconds
-Analysis ends at time 50, minutes
174 Measurements analyzed from 33 to 206
35
-T~
46 r
20
r
25
1
30 40
Project Number Granite saprolite piezometer
Analysis by Starpoint Software
Adjusted Time (minutes)
Ho is 47,14 feet at 6,396 seconds
6/13/2002
Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test
Site Name:
Location:
Test Date:
Project Number:
Import File:
A-1 Sandrock, Inc. CDLF
Guilford County, NC
05/28/02
Granite saprolite piezometer
A:\B-21fh
Well Label:
Aquifer Thickness:
Screen Length:
Casing Radius:
Effective Radius:
Gravel Pack Porosity:
Conrected Casing Radius:
Static Water Level:
Water Table to Screen Bottom:
Anisotropy Ratio:
Time Adjustment:
Test starts with trial 32
There are 206 time and drawdown measurements
Maximum head is 47.14 feet
Minimum head is 0. feet
B-21 falling head
16. feet
10. feet
2. inches
6. inclies
30. %
3.688 inches
44.03 feet
16. feet
1.
6.396 Seconds
Trial Time Adjusted Time Drawdown Head Head Ratio
(minutes) (minutes) (feet) (feet)
1 0. -0.1066 0. 44.03 0.934
2 3.3e-003 -0.1033 -6.e-003 44.04 0.9342
3 6.6e-003 -0.1 -1.26-002 44.04 0.9343
4 1 .e-002 -9.66e-002 -1.86-002 44.05 0.9344
5 1.33e-002 -9.33e-002 -1.26-002 44.04 0.9343
6 1.66e-002 -9.e-002 -6.6-003 44.04 0.9342
7 2.e-002 -8.66e-002 -1.26-002 44.04 0.9343
8 2.33e-002 -8.33e-002 -1.86-002 44.05 0.9344
9 2.66e-002 -8.e-002 -1.86-002 44.05 0.9344
10 3.e-002 -7.66e-002 -6.e-003 44.04 0.9342
11 3.33e-002 -7.33e-002 -1.26-002 44.04 0.9343
12 3.66e-002 -7.e-002 -1.26-002 44.04 0.9343
13 4.e-002 -6.66e-002 -1.26-002 44.04 0.9343
14 4.33e-002 -6.33e-002 -6.6-003 44.04 0.9342
15 4.66e-002 -6. e-002 -6.6-003 44.04 0.9342
16 5.e-002 -5.66e-002 -1.26-002 44.04 0.9343
17 5.33e-002 -5.33e-002 -1.2e-002 44.04 0.9343
18 5.66e-002 -5.e-002 -1.023 45.05 0.9557
19 6.e-002 -4.66e-002 -1.733 45.76 0.9708
20 6.33e-002 -4.33e-002 -1.733 45.76 0.9708
21 6.66e-002 -4.e-002 -1.08 45.11 0.957
22 7.e-002 -3.66e-002 -1.394 45.42 0.9636
23 7.33e-002 -3.33e-002 -2.374 46.4 0.9844
24 7.66e-002 -3.6-002 -3.027 47.06 0.9983
25 8.e-002 -2.666-002 -2.449 46.48 0.986
26 8.33e-002 -2.336-002 -2.154 46.18 0.9797
27 8.66e-002 -2. e-002 -2.374 46.4 0.9844
28 9.e-002 -1.666-002 -2.889 46.92 0.9953
29 9.33e-002 -1.33e-002 -2.914 46.94 0.9959
30 9.66e-002 -1.e-002 -2.336 46.37 0.9836
31 0.1 -6.6e-003 -2.286 46.32 0.9825
32 0.1033 -3.3e-003 -2.694 46.72 0.9912
33 0.1066 0. -3.109 47.14 1.
34 0.11 3.4e-003 -2.939 46.97 0.9964
35 0.1133 6.7e-003 -2.518 46.55 0.9875
36 0.1166 1.e-002 -1.953 45.98 0.9755
37 0.12 1.34e-002 -2.192 46.22 0.9805
38 0.1233 1.67e-002 -2.543 46.57 0.988
39 0.1266 2.e-002 -2.826 46.86 0.994
40 0.13 2.34e-002 -2.248 46.28 0.9817
41 0.1333 2.67e-002 -1.947 45.98 0.9753
42 0.1366 3.e-002 -2.229 46.26 0.9813
43 0.14 3.34e-002 -2.6 46.63 0.9892
44 0.1433 3.67e-002 -2.613 46.64 0.9895
45 0.1466 4.e-002 -2.443 46.47 0.9859
46 0.15 4.34e-002 -2.298 46.33 0.9828
47 0.1533 4.67e-002 -2.148 46.18 0.9796
48 0.1566 5. e-002 -2.066 46.1 0.9779
49 0.16 5.34e-002 -2.041 46.07 0.9773
50 0.1633 5.67e-002 -1.84 45.87 0.9731
51 0.1666 6.e-002 -1.915 45.95 0.9747
52 0.17 6.34e-002 -2.179 46.21 0.9803
53 0.1733 6.67e-002 -2.091 46.12 0.9784
54 0.1766 7.e-002 -1.827 45.86 0.9728
55 0.18 7.34e-002 -1.984 46.01 0.9761
56 0.1833 7.67e-002 -2.16 46.19 0.9799
57 0.1866 8.e-002 -2.198 46.23 0.9807
58 0.19 8.34e-002 -1.978 46.01 0.976
59 0.1933 8.67e-002 -1.576 45.61 0.9675
60 0.1966 9.e-002 -1.607 45.64 0.9681
61 0.2 9.34e-002 -1.815 45.84 0.9725
62 0.2033 9.67e-002 -2.091 46.12 0.9784
63 0.2066 0.1 -2.11 46.14 0.9788
64 0.21 0.1034 -1.94 45.97 0.9752
65 0.2133 0.1067 -1.965 45.99 0.9757
66 0.2166 0.11 -2.179 46.21 0.9803
67 0.22 0.1134 -2.38 46.41 0.9845
68 0.2233 0.1167 -2.298 46.33 0.9828
69 0.2266 0.12 -1.84 45.87 0.9731
70 0.23 0.1234 -1.312 45.34 0.9619
71 0.2333 0.1267 -1.507 45.54 0.966
72 0.2366 0.13 -1.934 45.96 0.9751
73 0.24 0.1334 -2.236 46.27 0.9815
74 0.2433 0.1367 -2.129 46.16 0.9792
75 0.2466 0.14 -1.815 45.84 0.9725
76 0.25 0.1434 -1.683 45.71 0.9697
77 0.2533 0.1467 -1.821 45.85 0.9727
78 0.2566 0.15 -1.626 45.66 0.9685
79 0.26 0.1534 -1.827 45.86 0.9728
80 0.2633 0.1567 -1.752 45.78 0.9712
81 0.2666 0.16 -1.89 45.92 0.9741
82 0.27 0.1634 -2.11 46.14 0.9788
83 0.2733 0.1667 -2.336 46.37 0.9836
6/13/2002
84 0.2766 0.17
85 0.28 0.1734
86 0.2833 0.1767
87 0.2866 0.18
88 0.29 0.1834
89 0.2933 0.1867
90 0.2966 0.19
91 0.3 0.1934
92 0.3033 0.1967
93 0.3066 0.2
94 0.31 0.2034
95 0.3133 0.2067
96 0.3166 0.21
97 0.32 0.2134
98 0.3233 0.2167
99 0.3266 0.22
100 0.33 0.2234
101 0.3333 0.2267
102 0.35 0.2434
103 0.3666 0.26
104 0.3833 0.2767
105 0.4 0.2934
106 0.4166 0.31
107 0.4333 0.3267
108 0.45 0.3434
109 0.4666 0.36
110 0.4833 0.3767
111 0.5 0.3934
112 0.5166 0.41
113 0.5333 0.4267
114 0.55 0.4434
115 0.5666 0.46
116 0.5833 0.4767
117 0.6 0.4934
118 0.6166 0.51
119 0.6333 0.5267
120 0.65 0.5434
121 0.6666 0.56
122 0.6833 0.5767
123 0.7 0.5934
124 0.7166 0.61
125 0.7333 0.6267
126 0.75 0.6434
127 0.7666 0.66
128 0.7833 0.6767
129 0.8 0.6934
130 0.8166 0.71
131 0.8333 0.7267
132 0.85 0.7434
133 0.8666 0.76
134 0.8833 0.7767
135 0.9 0.7934
136 0.9166 0.81
137 0.9333 0.8267
-2.11 46.14 0.9788
-1.676 45.71 0.9696
-1.532 45,56 0.9665
-1.802 45.83 0.9723
-2.085 46.12 0.9783
-2.122 4615 0.9791
-1.928 45.96 0.9749
-1.764 45,79 0,9715
-1.802 45.83 0.9723
-1.921 45,95 0.9748
-1.965 45.99 0.9757
-1,921 45,95 0.9748
-1.859 45.89 0.9735
-1.859 45.89 0.9735
-1.896 45.93 0.9743
-1.915 45.95 0.9747
-1.896 45.93 0.9743
-1.871 45.9 0.9737
-1.871 45.9 0.9737
-1.871 45.9 0.9737
-1.865 45.89 0.9736
-1.903 45.93 0.9744
-1.884 45.91 0.974
-1.884 45.91 0.974
-1.865 45.89 0.9736
-1.846 45.88 0.9732
-1.84 45.87 0.9731
-1.827 45.86 0.9728
-1.827 45.86 0.9728
-1.821 45.85 0.9727
-1.815 45.84 0.9725
-1.808 45.84 0.9724
-1.802 45.83 0.9723
-1.796 45.83 0.9721
-1.79 45.82 0.972
-1.783 45.81 0.9719
-1.783 45.81 0.9719
-1.777 45.81 0.9717
-1.771 45.8 0.9716
-1.764 45.79 0.9715
-1.764 45.79 0.9715
-1.752 45.78 0.9712
-1.752 45.78 0.9712
-1.746 45.78 0.9711
-1.739 45.77 0.9709
-1.733 45.76 0.9708
-1.727 45.76 0.9707
-1.758 45.79 0.9713
-1.727 45.76 0.9707
-1.714 45.74 0.9704
-1.708 45.74 0.9703
-1.708 45.74 0.9703
-1.702 45.73 0.9702
-1.695 45.72 0.97
6/13/2002
138 0.95 0.8434
139 0.9666 0.86
140 0.9833 0.8767
141 1. 0.8934
142 1.2 1.093
143 1.4 1.293
144 1.6 1.493
145 1.8 1.693
146 2. 1.893
147 2.2 2.093
148 2.4 2.293
149 2.6 2.493
150 2.8 2.693
151 3. 2.893
152 3.2 3.093
153 3.4 3.293
154 3.6 3.493
155 3.8 3.693
156 4. 3.893
157 4.2 4.093
158 4.4 4.293
159 4.6 4.493
160 4.8 4.693
161 5. 4.893
162 5.2 5.093
163 5.4 5.293
164 5.6 5.493
165 5.8 5.693
166 6. 5.893
167 6.2 6.093
168 6.4 6.293
169 66 6.493
170 68 6.693
171 7. 6.893
172 7.2 7.093
173 7.4 7.293
174 7.6 7.493
175 7.8 7.693
176 8. 7.893
177 62 8.093
178 8.4 8.293
179 66 8.493
180 8.8 8.693
181 9. 8.893
182 9.2 9.093
183 9.4 9.293
184 9.6 9.493
185 9.8 9.693
186 10. 9.893
187 12. 11.89
188 14. 13.89
189 16. 15.89
190 16 17.89
191 20. 19.89
-1.689 45.72 0.9699
-1.683 45.71 0.9697
-1.683 45.71 0.9697
-1.676 45.71 0.9696
-1.607 45.64 0.9681
-1.557 45.59 0.9671
-1.507 45.54 0.966
-1.463 45.49 0.9651
-1.419 45.45 0.9641
-1.375 45.4 0.9632
-1.337 45.37 0.9624
-1.293 45.32 0.9615
-1.262 45.29 0.9608
-1.224 45.25 0.96
-1.193 45.22 0.9594
-1.155 45.19 0.9585
-1.124 45.15 0.9579
-1.092 45.12 0.9572
-1.067 45.1 0.9567
-1.036 45.07 0.956
-1.011 45.04 0.9555
-0.985 45.02 0.9549
-0.96 44.99 0.9544
-0.935 44.97 0.9539
-0.91 44.94 0.9534
-0.885 44.91 0.9528
-0.866 44.9 0.9524
-0.841 44.87 0.9519
-0.822 44.85 0.9515
-0.803 44.83 0.9511
-0.778 44.81 0.9506
-0.759 44.79 0.9501
-0.747 44.78 0.9499
-0.728 44.76 0.9495
-0.709 44.74 0.9491
-0.69 44.72 0.9487
-0.678 44.71 0.9484
-0.659 44.69 0.948
-0.646 44.68 0.9478
-0.634 44.66 0.9475
-0.615 44.64 0.9471
-0.602 44.63 0.9468
-0.59 44.62 0.9466
-0.577 44.61 0.9463
-0.565 44.59 0.946
-0.552 44.58 0.9458
-0.54 44.57 0.9455
-0.527 44.56 0.9452
-0.514 44.54 0.945
-0.408 44.44 0.9427
-0.345 44.38 0.9414
-0.282 44.31 0.94
-0.238 44.27 0.9391
-0.201 44.23 0.9383
6/13/2002
192 22. 21,89 -0.175 44.2 0.9378
193 24. 23.89 -0.157 44.19 0.9374
194 26. 25.89 -0.144 44.17 0.9371
195 28. 27.89 -0.125 44.16 0.9367
196 30. 29.89 -0.113 44.14 0.9364
197 32. 31.89 -0.106 44.14 0.9363
198 34. 33.89 -0.1 44.13 0.9362
199 36. 35.89 -0.1 44.13 0,9362
200 36. 37.89 -8.7e-002 44.12 0.9359
201 40. 39.89 -8.1 e-002 44.11 0.9358
202 42. 41.89 -8.1 e-002 44.11 0.9358
203 44. 43.89 -7.5e-002 44.1 0.9356
204 46. 45.89 -8.1 e-002 44.11 0.9358
205 48. 47.89 -6.9e-002 44.1 0.9355
206 50. 49.89 -6.9e-002 44.1 0.9355
6/13/2002

ATTACHMENT D
Fracture Trace Analysis

O
Pf 6'^U 5V\ _ ri.'?". Ilnlorstatc 851 pryomc'town ^ ''^ 1^ - 1 iProposcd'^ini/and Landfill ^acllllv, S t / I ^ IT Hunt: Iff I \ TV 16,. " y of* 3-D 1 opoQuads (/opvright © 1999 Dt'Loime Yarmouth, MK 04096 Sounre Data: USGS -|950 ft Scalf: 1: 24,000 Detail: 13-0 Datum: WGS84
3 ( 'icnro ao^
23
mi.
0 OoO^ 010 f^^io^ 2,it>*4 ^ Z.n(t>
7
IS
3^
©
?3
J7 ^7 3
g) 0-7 3
Z«M - 3 M
3/2-- 33«

ATTACHMENT E
Phase 3 Geotechnical Laboratory Data

AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-36
Depth:8.5-10.0'Sample Number:SS-3
Material Description: Yellow Clayey Silty SAND
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 20 LL: 24 PI: 4
USCS Classification: SC-SM AASHTO Classification: A-2-4(0)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 6913
Testing Remarks: Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/10/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
633.16 0.00 0.00 #4 0.00 100.0
#10 4.63 99.3
54.32 0.00 0.00 #20 9.59 81.7
#40 19.63 63.4
#60 25.97 51.8
#100 31.18 42.3
#140 34.02 37.1
#200 36.57 32.4
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 99.3
Weight of hydrometer sample =54.32
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 24.67
Dry weight and tare =24.59
Tare weight =11.17
Hygroscopic moisture =0.6%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.0 20.0 14.3 0.0130 21.0 12.9 0.0328 26.0
5.00 23.0 17.0 11.3 0.0130 18.0 13.3 0.0212 20.5
15.00 23.0 14.0 8.3 0.0130 15.0 13.8 0.0124 15.1
30.00 23.0 13.0 7.3 0.0130 14.0 14.0 0.0089 13.3
60.00 23.0 12.0 6.3 0.0130 13.0 14.2 0.0063 11.4
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
250.00 22.7 11.0 5.2 0.0130 12.0 14.3 0.0031 9.5
1440.00 22.4 10.0 4.1 0.0131 11.0 14.5 0.0013 7.5
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.1
Granules
0.6
Sand
V. Crs.
13.3
Crs.
18.5
Med.
15.7
Fine
12.3
V. Fine
8.8
Total
68.6
Silt
Crs.
5.3
Med.
8.4
Fine
4.4
V. Fine
2.7
Total
20.8
Clay
9.9
D5 D10
0.0040
D15
0.0123
D20
0.0203
D30
0.0568
D40
0.1294
D50
0.2284
D60
0.3677
D80
0.7965
D85
0.9622
D90
1.1790
D95
1.4952
Fineness
Modulus
1.40
Cu
91.18
Cc
2.17
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Yellow Clayey Silty SAND
#4
#10
#20#40
#60
#100
#140
#2000.0328 mm.
0.0212 mm.
0.0124 mm.
0.0089 mm.
0.0063 mm.0.0031 mm.
0.0013 mm.
100.0
99.3
81.763.4
51.8
42.3
37.1
32.426.0
20.5
15.1
13.3
11.49.5
7.5
20 24 4
SC-SM A-2-4(0)
1.1790 0.9622 0.36770.2284 0.0568 0.01230.0040 91.18 2.17
Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/10/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468-18-8009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-36 Depth: 8.5-10.0'Sample Number: SS-3
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 6913)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 13.3 18.5 15.7 12.3 8.8 5.3 8.4 4.4 2.7 9.96 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-36
Depth:8.5-10.0'Sample Number:SS-3
Material Description: Yellow Clayey Silty SAND
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 63.4
USCS: SC-SM AASHTO: A-2-4(0)
Testing Remarks: ND = Not Determined
Natural Moisture Content = 9.9%
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
34.13
30.48
15.50
21
24.4
2
28.69
26.18
15.62
22
23.8
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture23.6
23.7
23.8
23.9
24
24.1
24.2
24.3
24.4
24.5
24.6
Blows
5678910 2025 30 40
1
2
Liquid Limit=24
Plastic Limit=20
Plasticity Index=4
Natural Moisture=9.9
Liquidity Index=-2.5
Plastic Limit Data
1
26.54
24.65
15.49
20.6
2
23.97
22.58
15.49
19.6
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare
104.74
Dry+Tare
97.94
Tare
29.34
Moisture
9.9
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Yellow Clayey Silty SAND ND 3/10/18 CS 24 20 4 63.4 SC-SM
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-36 Depth: 8.5-10.0'Sample Number: SS-3
ND = Not Determined
Natural Moisture Content = 9.9%Phase 3 PTC
AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-37
Depth:1.0-2.5'Sample Number:SS-1
Material Description: Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 24 LL: 41 PI: 17
USCS Classification: CL AASHTO Classification: A-7-6(7)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 422
Testing Remarks: Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/2/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
533.64 0.00 0.00 #4 0.00 100.0
#10 4.89 99.1
50.62 0.00 0.00 #20 2.13 94.9
#40 7.76 83.9
#60 12.65 74.3
#100 16.83 66.1
#140 19.25 61.4
#200 21.45 57.1
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 99.1
Weight of hydrometer sample =50.62
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 28.07
Dry weight and tare =27.88
Tare weight =15.49
Hygroscopic moisture =1.5%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.0 32.0 26.3 0.0130 33.0 10.9 0.0302 51.7
5.00 23.0 31.0 25.3 0.0130 32.0 11.0 0.0193 49.7
15.00 23.0 28.0 22.3 0.0130 29.0 11.5 0.0114 43.8
30.00 23.0 26.0 20.3 0.0130 27.0 11.9 0.0082 39.9
60.00 23.0 24.0 18.3 0.0130 25.0 12.2 0.0058 36.0
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
250.00 22.8 22.0 16.2 0.0130 23.0 12.5 0.0029 31.9
1440.00 22.7 19.0 13.2 0.0130 20.0 13.0 0.0012 26.0
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.1
Granules
0.8
Sand
V. Crs.
2.7
Crs.
9.5
Med.
12.6
Fine
10.7
V. Fine
8.2
Total
43.7
Silt
Crs.
3.6
Med.
4.1
Fine
8.4
V. Fine
6.1
Total
22.2
Clay
33.2
D5 D10 D15 D20 D30
0.0021
D40
0.0082
D50
0.0200
D60
0.0953
D80
0.3436
D85
0.4514
D90
0.5996
D95
0.8567
Fineness
Modulus
0.69
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY
#4
#10
#20#40
#60
#100
#140
#2000.0302 mm.
0.0193 mm.
0.0114 mm.
0.0082 mm.
0.0058 mm.0.0029 mm.
0.0012 mm.
100.0
99.1
94.983.9
74.3
66.1
61.4
57.151.7
49.7
43.8
39.9
36.031.9
26.0
24 41 17
CL A-7-6(7)
0.5996 0.4514 0.09530.0200 0.0021
Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/2/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468-18-8009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 1.0-2.5'Sample Number: SS-1
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 422)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2.7 9.5 12.6 10.7 8.2 3.6 4.1 8.4 6.1 33.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-37
Depth:1.0-2.5'Sample Number:SS-1
Material Description: Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 83.9
USCS: CL AASHTO: A-7-6(7)
Testing Remarks: Natural Moisture Content = 22.9%
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
25.37
22.50
15.48
24
40.9
2
26.21
23.10
15.51
23
41.0
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture40.88
40.89
40.9
40.91
40.92
40.93
40.94
40.95
40.96
40.97
40.98
Blows
5678910 2025 30 40
1
2 Liquid Limit=41
Plastic Limit=24
Plasticity Index=17
Natural Moisture=22.9
Liquidity Index=-0.1
Plastic Limit Data
1
25.11
23.25
15.45
23.8
2
24.05
22.44
15.79
24.2
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare
113.13
Dry+Tare
97.69
Tare
30.15
Moisture
22.9
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Reddish Yellow Sandy Lean CLAY ND 3/10/18 CS 41 24 17 83.9 CL
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 1.0-2.5'Sample Number: SS-1
Natural Moisture Content = 22.9%
Phase 3 PTC
AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468-18-8009
Location:B-37
Depth:28.5-30.0'Sample Number:SS-8
Material Description: Olive Brown Clayey SAND
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 24 LL: 34 PI: 10
USCS Classification: SC AASHTO Classification: A-4(2)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 422-63(07)e2
Testing Remarks: Specicic Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/10/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
650.51 0.00 0.00 .375 0.00 100.0
#4 1.03 99.8
#10 37.88 94.2
48.88 0.00 0.00 #20 3.72 87.0
#40 8.40 78.0
#60 12.90 69.3
#100 17.81 59.9
#140 21.03 53.7
#200 24.19 47.6
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 94.2
Weight of hydrometer sample =48.88
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 24.21
Dry weight and tare =23.82
Tare weight =11.11
Hygroscopic moisture =3.1%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.0 23.0 17.3 0.0130 24.0 12.4 0.0322 34.0
5.00 23.0 19.0 13.3 0.0130 20.0 13.0 0.0209 26.1
15.00 23.0 15.5 9.8 0.0130 16.5 13.6 0.0123 19.2
30.00 23.0 14.0 8.3 0.0130 15.0 13.8 0.0088 16.3
60.00 23.0 12.0 6.3 0.0130 13.0 14.2 0.0063 12.4
250.00 22.8 11.0 5.2 0.0130 12.0 14.3 0.0031 10.3
1440.00 22.4 10.0 4.1 0.0131 11.0 14.5 0.0013 8.1
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.9
Granules
4.9
Sand
V. Crs.
5.6
Crs.
8.2
Med.
11.1
Fine
12.7
V. Fine
12.0
Total
49.6
Silt
Crs.
11.3
Med.
11.5
Fine
6.9
V. Fine
4.5
Total
34.2
Clay
10.4
D5 D10
0.0025
D15
0.0079
D20
0.0133
D30
0.0260
D40
0.0465
D50
0.0863
D60
0.1511
D80
0.4872
D85
0.7110
D90
1.1699
D95
2.2212
Fineness
Modulus
0.99
Cu
60.27
Cc
1.78
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Olive Brown Clayey SAND
.375
#4
#10#20
#40
#60
#100
#140#200
0.0322 mm.
0.0209 mm.
0.0123 mm.
0.0088 mm.0.0063 mm.
0.0031 mm.
0.0013 mm.
100.0
99.8
94.287.0
78.0
69.3
59.9
53.747.6
34.0
26.1
19.2
16.312.4
10.3
8.1
24 34 10
SC A-4(2)
1.1699 0.7110 0.15110.0863 0.0260 0.00790.0025 60.27 1.78
Specicic Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/10/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468-18-8009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 28.5-30.0'Sample Number: SS-8
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 422-63(07)e2)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.9 4.9 5.6 8.2 11.1 12.7 12.0 11.3 11.5 6.9 4.5 10.46 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468188009
Location:B-37
Depth:28.5-30.0'Sample Number:SS-8
Material Description: Olive Brown Clayey SAND
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 78.0
USCS: SC AASHTO: A-4(2)
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
24.71
21.35
11.19
28
33.1
2
26.89
24.06
15.52
29
33.1
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture33.06
33.07
33.08
33.09
33.1
33.11
33.12
33.13
33.14
33.15
33.16
Blows5678910 2025 30 40
1
2
Liquid Limit=34
Plastic Limit=24
Plasticity Index=10
Plastic Limit Data
1
19.74
18.12
11.18
23.3
2
21.35
20.22
15.53
24.1
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare Dry+Tare
133.97
Tare
27.79
Moisture
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Olive Brown Clayey SAND ND 3/10/18 CS 34 24 10 78.0 SC
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-37 Depth: 28.5-30.0'Sample Number: SS-8
Phase 3 PTC
AMEC
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468188009
Location:B-38
Depth:3.5-5.0'Sample Number:SS-2
Material Description: Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY
Sample Date: ND
Date Received: 3/2/18 PL: 24 LL: 45 PI: 21
USCS Classification: CL AASHTO Classification: A-7-6(11)
Grain Size Test Method: ASTM D 422-63(07)e2
Testing Remarks: Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
Tested By: CS Test Date: 3/2/18
Checked By: SPF Title: Lab Director
Sieve Test Data
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
Percent
Finer
526.80 0.00 0.00 #4 0.00 100.0
#10 3.00 99.4
51.89 0.00 0.00 #20 2.15 95.3
#40 7.22 85.6
#60 11.89 76.6
#100 15.81 69.1
#140 17.89 65.2
#200 19.69 61.7
Hydrometer Test Data
Hydrometer test uses material passing #10
Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 99.4
Weight of hydrometer sample =51.89
Hygroscopic moisture correction:
Moist weight and tare = 27.31
Dry weight and tare =27.13
Tare weight =13.63
Hygroscopic moisture =1.3%
Table of composite correction values:
Temp., deg. C:
Comp. corr.:
11.4-9.0 29.0-4.0
Meniscus correction only = 1.0
Specific gravity of solids = 2.700
Hydrometer type = 152H
Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
2.00 23.2 37.0 31.4 0.0129 38.0 10.1 0.0290 60.2
5.00 23.2 35.0 29.4 0.0129 36.0 10.4 0.0186 56.4
15.00 23.2 31.0 25.4 0.0129 32.0 11.0 0.0111 48.7
30.00 23.0 28.0 22.3 0.0130 29.0 11.5 0.0080 42.8
60.00 23.0 26.0 20.3 0.0130 27.0 11.9 0.0058 39.0
AMEC
Hydrometer Test Data (continued)
Elapsed
Time (min.)
Temp.
(deg. C.)
Actual
Reading
Corrected
Reading K Rm
Eff.
Depth
Diameter
(mm.)
Percent
Finer
250.00 22.7 24.0 18.2 0.0130 25.0 12.2 0.0029 35.0
1440.00 22.8 21.0 15.2 0.0130 22.0 12.7 0.0012 29.3
Fractional Components
Boulders
0.0
Cobbles
0.0
Pebbles
0.0
Granules
0.6
Sand
V. Crs.
2.7
Crs.
8.5
Med.
11.6
Fine
9.6
V. Fine
5.6
Total
38.0
Silt
Crs.
1.1
Med.
6.2
Fine
11.7
V. Fine
5.9
Total
24.9
Clay
36.5
D5 D10 D15 D20 D30
0.0013
D40
0.0064
D50
0.0120
D60
0.0278
D80
0.3055
D85
0.4101
D90
0.5600
D95
0.8243
Fineness
Modulus
0.63
(no specification provided)*
PL= LL= PI=
USCS (D 2487)= AASHTO (M 145)=
D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=
Remarks
Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY
#4
#10
#20#40
#60
#100
#140
#2000.0290 mm.
0.0186 mm.
0.0111 mm.
0.0080 mm.
0.0058 mm.0.0029 mm.
0.0012 mm.
100.0
99.4
95.385.6
76.6
69.1
65.2
61.760.2
56.4
48.7
42.8
39.035.0
29.3
24 45 21
CL A-7-6(11)
0.5600 0.4101 0.02780.0120 0.0013
Specific Gravity is assumed
ND = Not Determined
3/2/18 3/2/18
CS
SPF
Lab Director
ND
Al Sand Rock
Phase 3 PTC
6468188009
Material Description
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
Classification
Coefficients
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By:
Checked By:
Title:
Date Sampled:Source of Sample: B-38 Depth: 3.5-5.0'Sample Number: SS-2
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 422-63(07)e2)
Opening Percent Spec.
*Pass?
Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% Boulders % +3"% Pebbles % GranulesV. Crs.Crs.Med.Fine
% Sand
V. Fine Crs.Med.Fine
% Silt
V. Fine % Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.7 8.5 11.6 9.6 5.6 1.1 6.2 11.7 5.9 36.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Grainsize Analysis
AMEC
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT TEST DATA 3/13/2018
Client: Al Sand Rock
Project: Phase 3 PTC
Project Number: 6468188009
Location:B-38
Depth:3.5-5.0'Sample Number:SS-2
Material Description: Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY
Sample Date: ND %<#40: 85.6
USCS: CL AASHTO: A-7-6(11)
Testing Remarks: Natural Moisture Content = 21.1%
Tested by: CS Test Date: 3/10/18 Checked by: SPF Title: Lab Director
Liquid Limit Data
1
29.63
25.28
15.52
26
44.6
2
29.97
25.13
14.26
27
44.5
3 4 5 6Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
# Blows
Moisture
Moisture44.52
44.525
44.53
44.535
44.54
44.545
44.55
44.555
44.56
44.565
44.57
Blows
5678910 2025 30 40
1
2
Liquid Limit=45
Plastic Limit=24
Plasticity Index=21
Natural Moisture=21.1
Liquidity Index=-0.1
Plastic Limit Data
1
22.07
20.75
15.27
24.1
2
24.76
22.75
14.37
24.0
3 4Run No.
Wet+Tare
Dry+Tare
Tare
Moisture
Natural Moisture Data
Wet+Tare
175.91
Dry+Tare
150.24
Tare
28.6
Moisture
21.1
Tested By: CS Checked By: SPF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
Material Description Sampled Tested Technician LL PL PI %<#40 USCS
Olive Yellowish Red Sandy Silty CLAY ND 3/10/18 CS 45 24 21 85.6 CL
6468188009 Al Sand Rock
SPF
Lab Director
Project No. Client:
Project:
Checked by:
Title:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-38 Depth: 3.5-5.0'Sample Number: SS-2
Natural Moisture Content = 21.1%
Phase 3 PTC
Geotechnics
Geotechnical Lab Data
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
DCN: Data Transmittal Letter Date: 1/28/05 Rev.: 1
March 30, 2018
Project No. R-2018-064
Mr. David Garrett
AMEC Foster Wheeler
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, NC 27703
[e-mail]
Transmittal
Laboratory Test Results
A1Sandrock 6468-18-8009
Please find attached the laboratory test results for the above referenced project. The tests were outlined
on the Project Verification Form that was transmitted to your firm prior to the testing. The testing was
performed in general accordance with the methods listed on the enclosed data sheets. The test results
are believed to be representative of the samples that were submitted for testing and are indicative only of
the specimens which were evaluated. We have no direct knowledge of the origin of the samples and
imply no position with regard to the nature of the test results, i.e. pass/fail and no claims as to the
suitability of the material for its intended use.
The test data and all associated project information provided shall be held in strict confidence and
disclosed to other parties only with authorization by our Client. The test data submitted herein is
considered integral with this report and is not to be reproduced except in whole and only with the
authorization of the Client and Geotechnics. The remaining sample materials for this project will be
retained for a minimum of 90 days as directed by the Geotechnics’ Quality Program.
We are pleased to provide these testing services. Should you have any questions or if we may be of
further assistance, please contact our office.
Respectively submitted,
Geotechnics, Inc.
Michael P. Smith
Regional Manager
We understand that you have a choice in your laboratory services
and we thank you for choosing Geotechnics.
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTM D 2216-10
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009
Project No.: R-2018-064-001
Lab ID:-001 -002
Boring No.:B-30 B-32
Depth (ft):1.0-7.9 1.0-8.5
Sample No.:1 2
Tare Number 210 201
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g) 746.94 638.23
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g) 676.59 573.09
Weight of Tare (g)172.61 170.32
Weight of Water (g)70.35 65.14
Weight of Dry Sample (g)503.98 402.77
Water Content (%)14.0 16.2
Notes :
Tested By APG Date 3/14/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/15/18
page 1 of 1 DCN: CT-S1 DATE: 3/18/13 REVISION: 4
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS cobbles gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA cobbles gravel sand silt clay
USCS Summary
Sieve Sizes (mm) Percentage
Greater Than #4 Gravel 18.12
#4 To #200 Sand 46.77
Finer Than #200 Silt & Clay 35.12
USCS Symbol SC, TESTED
USCS Classification CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
page 1 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000Percent Finer By WeightParticle Diameter (mm)
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
Particle Percent USDA SUMMARY Actual Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
Size (mm)Finer Percentage material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 29.20 0.00
2 70.80 Sand 42.65 60.24
0.05 28.15 Silt 18.23 25.74
0.002 9.92 Clay 9.92 14.02
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1
0102030405060708090100
PERCENT SAND
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 90
8
7
6
5
4
3
20
10
CLAY
SANDY
CLAY
SANDY CLAY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SAND
LOAM
SILT LOAM
SILT
CLAY LOAM
SILTY CLAY LOAM
SILTY CLAY
LOAMY
SAND
PERCENT SILT
PERCENT CLAY
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content Hydrometer Specimen Data
Tare No.U-1 Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g)62.81
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)34.68 Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g)58.83
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)33.87
Weight of Tare (g)21.90 Weight of - #200 Material (g)29.18
Weight of Water (g)0.81 Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g)29.65
Weight of Dry Soil (g)11.97
Moisture Content (%)6.8 J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #10)0.7080
Soil Specimen Data
Tare No.TR-2
Wgt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)4791.50
Weight of Tare (g)867.74
Air Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 3923.76 Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g)1093.25
Total Dry Sample Weight (g) 3744.36 Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g)2651.11
Sieve Sieve Wgt.of Soil Percent Accumulated Percent Accumulated
Size Opening Retained Retained Percent Finer Percent
(mm)Retained Finer
(gm)(%) (%)(%)(%)
12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
2" 50 178.18 4.8 4.8 95.2 95.2
1 1/2" 37.5 0.00 0.0 4.8 95.2 95.2
1" 25.0 41.63 1.1 5.9 94.1 94.1
3/4" 19.0 47.78 1.3 7.1 92.9 92.9
1/2" 12.5 91.87 2.5 9.6 90.4 90.4
3/8" 9.50 88.30 2.4 12.0 88.0 88.0
#4 4.75 230.57 6.2 18.1 81.9 81.9
#10 2.00 414.92 11.1 29.2 70.8 70.8
#20 0.85 4.45 7.6 7.6 92.4 65.4
#40 0.425 7.31 12.4 20.0 80.0 56.6
#60 0.250 5.90 10.0 30.0 70.0 49.5
#140 0.106 8.87 15.1 45.1 54.9 38.9
#200 0.075 3.12 5.3 50.4 49.6 35.1
Pan -29.18 49.6 100.0 --
Notes :
Tested By BW Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/19/18
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1
2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Color Brown
Elapsed R Temp.Composite RNKDiameterN'
Time Measured ( o C )Correction Corrected ( % ) Factor ( mm ) ( % )
(min)
0NANANANANANANANA
2 22.0 21 4.17 17.8 30.0 0.01328 0.0335 21.2
5 22.0 21 4.17 17.8 30.0 0.01328 0.0212 21.2
15 21.0 21 4.17 16.8 28.3 0.01328 0.0123 20.1
30 18.0 21.1 4.15 13.8 23.3 0.01327 0.0088 16.5
60 17.0 21.3 4.12 12.9 21.7 0.01324 0.0063 15.3
250 14.0 22 4.00 10.0 16.8 0.01313 0.0031 11.9
1440 11.0 20.8 4.20 6.8 11.4 0.01332 0.0013 8.1
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 58.83 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.937
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 70.80
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By BW Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/19/18
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001 Soil Description: BROWN LEAN CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40 ( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve material. See the "Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis" graph page for the complete material description .
1 2 3 M
Tare Number:KP EJU
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 28.23 27.84 27.26 L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 25.11 24.57 23.98 T
Weight of Tare (g): 15.52 15.27 15.16 I
Weight of Water (g): 3.1 3.3 3.3 P
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 9.6 9.3 8.8 O
Was As Received MC Preserved:I
Moisture Content (%): 32.5 35.2 37.2 N
Number of Blows: 35 26 16 T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range Test Results
Tare Number:Y-3 Q Liquid Limit (%): 35
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 21.66 21.83
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 20.67 20.76 Plastic Limit (%): 19
Weight of Tare (g): 15.59 15.18
Weight of Water (g): 1.0 1.1 Plasticity Index (%): 16
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 5.1 5.6
USCS Symbol: CL
Moisture Content (%): 19.5 19.2 0.3
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.12
Flow Curve Plasticity Chart
Tested By BW Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/14/18
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/18 S:\Excel\Excel QA\Spreadsheets\Limit 3Pt.xls
Yes
210
ASTM D2216-10
14.0
504.0
70.4
172.61
676.59
746.94
Liquid Limit TestAs Received Moisture Content
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
110100Water Content (%)Number of Blows
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20406080100Plasticity Index (%)Liquid Limit (%)
CL CH
MH
CL-ML
ML

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 4718, D 698-91 (SOP-S12,S39)
ASTM D 4718-87, D 698-07e1
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft)1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No.1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001 Test Method STANDARD
Visual Description Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel
Optimum Water Content 11.0 Corrected Water Content 10.6
Maximum Dry Density 122.0 Corrected Dry Density 123.3
Tested By APG Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/14/18
page 1 of 2 DCN:CT-S 39 DATE:2/28/01 Revision 6Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 Proctor rock correction.xls]Sheet1
105
110
115
120
125
130
0 5 10 15 20Density (pcf)Water Content (%)
Non-corrected Curve Corrected Curve
Specific Gravity
Bulk Sp. Gravity
2.70
Assumed
2.81Measured

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 4718, D 698-91 (SOP-S12,S39)
ASTM D 4718-87, D 698-07e1
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.B-30
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft)1.0-7.9
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No.1
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel
Total Weight of the Sample (gm)27550 TestType STANDARD
As Received Water Content(%)NA Rammer Weight (lbs)5.5
Assumed Specific Gravity(gm/cc)2.70 Rammer Drop (in)12
Rammer Type Mechanical
Percent Retained on 3/4" (Dry)3.30 Machine ID R 174
Percent Retained on 3/8" (Dry)NA Mold ID R 173
Percent Retained on #4 (Dry) NA Mold diameter 6"
Oversize Material Not included Weight of the Mold 5501
Procedure Used C Volume Of the Mold 2119
Mold/Specimen
Point No.1 2 3 4 5
Wt. of Mold & WS (gm)9450 9764 10103 10059 10000
Wt.of Mold (gm)5501 5501 5501 5501 5501
Wt. of WS 3949 4263 4602 4558 4499
Mold Volume (cc)2119 2119 2119 2119 2119
Moisture Content/Density
Tare Number 838 834 841 830 831
Wt. of Tare & WS (gm)619.00 988.70 1112.60 688.90 1044.10
Wt. of Tare & DS (gm)600.00 938.70 1027.90 633.10 938.60
Wt. of Tare (gm)262.70 260.40 260.10 260.00 263.30
Wt. of Water (gm)19.00 50.00 84.70 55.80 105.50
Wt. of DS (gm)337.30 678.30 767.80 373.10 675.30
Wet Density (gm/cc)1.86 2.01 2.17 2.15 2.12
Wet Density (pcf)116.3 125.5 135.5 134.2 132.5
Moisture Content (%) 5.6 7.4 11.0 15.0 15.6
Dry Density (pcf) 110.1 116.9 122.0 116.7 114.6
Zero Air Voids
Moisture Content (%)11.0 15.0 15.6
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)129.8 120.0 118.5
Tested By APG Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/14/18
page 2 of 2 DCN:CT-S 39 DATE:2/28/01 Revision 6Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 Proctor rock correction.xls]Sheet1

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.B-30
Client Project A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft.)1.0-7.9
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID No. R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: Brown Clayey Sand
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 2.2E-07 cm/sec @ 20oC
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 2.2E-09 m/sec @ 20oC
Tested By: TMS Date: 9/4/09 Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
Page 1 of 3 DCN: CT-22A DATE:2-2-10 REVISION: 5Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 Permometer.xlsm]Sheet1
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
PERMOMETER METHOD
ASTM D 5084-16a
1.0E-09
1.0E-08
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0PERMEABILITY, cm/secELAPSED TIME, min
PERMEABILITY vs. TIME

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Project A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft.) 1.0-7.9
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID No. R-2018-064-001-001
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Sample Condition Remolded
Visual Description: Brown Clayey Sand
MOISTURE CONTENT:BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
Tare Number TB-12 825
Wt. of Tare & WS (gm.)305.28 649.27
Wt. of Tare & DS (gm.)286.80 584.41
Wt. of Tare (gm.)135.08 136.78
Wt. of Water (gm.)18.48 64.86
Wt. of DS (gm.)151.72 447.63
Moisture Content (%)12.2 14.5
SPECIMEN:BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
Wt. of Tube & WS (gm.)2536.51 NA
Wt. of Tube (gm.)1629.85 NA
Wt. of WS (calc.) (gm.)906.66 925.32
Length 1 (in.)4.005 3.951
Length 2 (in.)4.005 3.978
Length 3 (in.)4.005 4.014
Top Diameter (in.)2.867 2.804
Middle Diameter (in.)2.867 2.886
Bottom Diameter (in.)2.867 2.835
Average Length (in.)4.01 3.98
Average Area (in.2 )6.46 6.34
Sample Volume (cm3 )423.69 413.74
Unit Wet Wt. (gm./ cm3 )2.140 2.236
Unit Wet Wt. (pcf ) 133.6 139.6
Unit Dry Wt. (pcf ) 119.1 121.9
Unit Dry Wt. (gm./ cm3 )1.908 1.953
Void Ratio, e 0.415 0.382
Porosity, n 0.293 0.277
Pore Volume (cm3 )124.4 114.4
Total Wt. Of Sample After Test 932.75
Tested By: TMS Date: 9/4/09 Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
Page 2 of 3 DCN: CT-22A DATE:2-2-10 REVISION: 5Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 Permometer.xlsm]Sheet1
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
PERMOMETER METHOD
ASTM D 5084-16a

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-30
Client Project A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft.) 1.0-7.9
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 1
Lab ID No. R-2018-064-001-001
Test Pressures Final Sample Dimensions
Cell Pressure(psi)53.5 Sample Length (cm), L 10.11
Back Pressure(psi)50.0 Sample Area (cm2 ), A 40.92
Eff. Cons. Pressure(psi) 3.5 Pipette Area (cm2 ), ap 0.03142
Response (%) 95 Annulus Area (cm2 ), aa 0.76712
Equilibrium Level (cm), Req 1
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 2.2E-07 cm/sec @ 20oC
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 2.2E-09 m/sec @ 20oC
DATE ELAPSED PIPETTE INCREMENT TEMP. INCREMENTAL
TIME READI NG GRADIENT PERMEABILITY
tRp i @ 20oC
(mm/dd/yy) (hr) (min) (sec) (min) (min) (cm) (cm/cm)( oC)(cm/sec)
3/21/18 14 15 29 15.48 0.000 9.5 11.0 22.2 NA
3/21/18 14 15 50 15.83 0.350 9.4 10.8 22.2 3.2E-07
3/21/18 14 16 11 16.18 0.700 9.3 10.7 22.2 3.2E-07
3/21/18 14 16 37 16.62 1.133 9.2 10.6 22.2 2.6E-07
3/21/18 14 17 3 17.05 1.567 9.1 10.5 22.2 2.7E-07
3/21/18 14 17 32 17.53 2.050 9.0 10.3 22.2 2.4E-07
3/21/18 14 18 1 18.02 2.533 8.9 10.2 22.2 2.4E-07
3/21/18 14 18 33 18.55 3.067 8.8 10.1 22.2 2.2E-07
3/21/18 14 19 6 19.10 3.617 8.7 9.9 22.2 2.2E-07
3/21/18 14 19 40 19.67 4.183 8.6 9.8 22.2 2.2E-07
3/21/18 14 20 16 20.27 4.783 8.5 9.7 22.2 2.1E-07
Tested By: TMS Date: 9/4/09 Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
Page 3 of 3 DCN: CT-22A DATE:2-2-10 REVISION: 5Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 Permometer.xlsm]Sheet1
TIME
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
PERMOMETER METHOD
ASTM D 5084-16a

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
a =0.00 C =0.00
α =27.2 Φ =30.87
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Approved By: MPS Date: 3/22/18
page 1 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 Sigmatriax.xls
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Q, (psi)P, (psi)
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test with Pore Pressure
Max. Effec. Stress Ratio Points Failure Envelope Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3
α

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

MOHR TOTAL STRENGTH ENVELOPE
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Failure Based on Maximum Effective Principal Stress Ratio NOTE: GRAPH NOT TO SCALE
Tested By:MY Date:3/15/18 Approved By: MPS Date:3/22/18
page 2 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40τ(psi)σ (psi)
c =
Φ =
2.85
18.26

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.1
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864
Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)53.5 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 3.5 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)96 Final Burette Reading (ml)19.6
Final Change (ml)4.4
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)26
P =8.27 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 25
Q =5.54 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)38
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
10.0 0.000 50.0
14.5 0.001 50.0
20.0 0.002 50.2
32.7 0.009 50.8
39.0 0.014 51.1
43.3 0.020 51.248.9 0.029 51.354.1 0.038 51.3
60.6 0.049 51.3
70.8 0.069 51.1
82.2 0.098 50.7
91.2 0.132 50.2
96.7 0.167 49.7
101.4 0.209 49.3
104.5 0.239 49.1
107.9 0.279 48.9
112.9 0.347 48.5
118.7 0.427 48.2
121.8 0.484 48.1
125.8 0.560 47.9
129.8 0.620 47.7
132.2 0.677 47.6
134.6 0.734 47.5
137.4 0.774 47.4
139.6 0.813 47.3
141.2 0.853 47.2
143.1 0.892 47.1
144.9 0.947 47.0
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
page 3 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 Sigmatriax.xls

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)3.5 Stage No.1
Test No 1
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.37
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.98
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.413
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.02 0.70 0.05 4.14 3.4 1.203 0.08 3.79 0.35
0.04 1.56 0.24 4.82 3.3 1.477 0.16 4.04 0.78
0.14 3.53 0.79 6.24 2.7 2.303 0.23 4.47 1.76
0.24 4.51 1.07 6.94 2.4 2.858 0.25 4.68 2.26
0.34 5.18 1.21 7.47 2.3 3.262 0.24 4.88 2.590.49 6.04 1.30 8.24 2.2 3.743 0.22 5.22 3.020.63 6.84 1.32 9.02 2.2 4.135 0.20 5.60 3.42
0.82 7.82 1.27 10.05 2.2 4.506 0.17 6.14 3.91
1.16 9.37 1.07 11.79 2.4 4.866 0.12 7.11 4.68
1.64 11.07 0.76 13.81 2.7 5.041 0.07 8.27 5.54
2.21 12.39 0.19 15.70 3.3 4.747 0.02 9.50 6.19
2.79 13.13 -0.27 16.90 3.8 4.485 -0.02 10.34 6.57
3.50 13.75 -0.68 17.92 4.2 4.294 -0.05 11.05 6.87
3.99 14.14 -0.89 18.53 4.4 4.224 -0.07 11.46 7.07
4.66 14.55 -1.13 19.18 4.6 4.146 -0.08 11.90 7.28
5.80 15.12 -1.48 20.10 5.0 4.036 -0.10 12.54 7.56
7.13 15.74 -1.75 20.99 5.2 3.999 -0.12 13.12 7.87
8.09 16.03 -1.92 21.45 5.4 3.957 -0.13 13.44 8.02
9.36 16.37 -2.13 22.00 5.6 3.912 -0.14 13.81 8.19
10.37 16.75 -2.26 22.50 5.8 3.910 -0.14 14.13 8.37
11.32 16.90 -2.40 22.80 5.9 3.868 -0.15 14.35 8.45
12.28 17.04 -2.52 23.05 6.0 3.832 -0.15 14.54 8.52
12.93 17.30 -2.60 23.39 6.1 3.836 -0.16 14.75 8.65
13.59 17.47 -2.68 23.64 6.2 3.828 -0.16 14.91 8.73
14.26 17.55 -2.77 23.81 6.3 3.800 -0.16 15.04 8.77
14.90 17.67 -2.84 24.00 6.3 3.788 -0.17 15.17 8.83
15.82 17.71 -2.95 24.16 6.5 3.745 -0.17 15.31 8.86
page 4 of 11

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.2
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864
Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)56.9 Avg. Length 5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 6.9 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)95 Final Burette Reading (ml)14.2
Final Change (ml)9.8
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)84
P =13.52 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 80
Q =8.22 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)94
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
7.1 0.000 50.0
10.2 0.002 50.1
18.4 0.004 50.0
35.0 0.010 50.8
48.7 0.016 51.5
56.0 0.022 51.867.3 0.030 52.177.9 0.039 52.1
84.3 0.052 52.2
97.3 0.072 52.0
106.3 0.102 51.9
114.3 0.137 51.6
117.8 0.173 51.3
120.6 0.216 50.9
122.9 0.245 50.7
127.4 0.288 50.5
130.6 0.345 50.3
132.7 0.405 50.1
140.6 0.450 49.8
142.2 0.510 49.7
143.3 0.555 49.5
148.1 0.600 49.5
147.4 0.646 49.3
150.6 0.675 49.3
152.7 0.705 49.2
154.7 0.735 49.1
154.5 0.765 49.1
156.5 0.811 48.9
160.4 0.857 48.9
160.4 0.886 48.8
163.4 0.916 48.8
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
page 5 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)6.9 Stage No.1
Test No 2
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.10
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.99
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.366
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.04 0.49 0.01 7.34 6.8 1.072 0.02 7.09 0.25
0.06 1.77 -0.03 8.66 6.9 1.257 -0.02 7.77 0.89
0.16 4.38 0.75 10.49 6.1 1.717 0.18 8.30 2.19
0.26 6.51 1.42 11.94 5.4 2.199 0.23 8.69 3.26
0.36 7.65 1.77 12.74 5.1 2.503 0.24 8.91 3.830.51 9.41 2.04 14.23 4.8 2.953 0.23 9.52 4.710.66 11.04 2.09 15.81 4.8 3.316 0.20 10.29 5.52
0.86 12.02 2.11 16.76 4.7 3.531 0.18 10.76 6.01
1.21 14.00 1.94 18.91 4.9 3.850 0.15 11.91 7.00
1.70 15.32 1.85 20.32 5.0 4.062 0.13 12.66 7.66
2.29 16.45 1.56 21.75 5.3 4.106 0.10 13.52 8.22
2.89 16.88 1.23 22.51 5.6 3.999 0.08 14.07 8.44
3.60 17.18 0.90 23.14 6.0 3.883 0.05 14.55 8.59
4.10 17.44 0.64 23.66 6.2 3.804 0.04 14.94 8.72
4.81 17.99 0.46 24.39 6.4 3.812 0.03 15.39 9.00
5.76 18.28 0.20 24.93 6.7 3.748 0.01 15.79 9.14
6.77 18.39 0.01 25.24 6.8 3.687 0.00 16.04 9.20
7.51 19.39 -0.21 26.46 7.1 3.745 -0.01 16.76 9.70
8.51 19.41 -0.37 26.63 7.2 3.687 -0.02 16.93 9.70
9.28 19.41 -0.50 26.76 7.4 3.637 -0.03 17.06 9.70
10.03 19.93 -0.59 27.38 7.4 3.678 -0.03 17.41 9.97
10.79 19.65 -0.70 27.21 7.6 3.601 -0.04 17.38 9.83
11.28 19.99 -0.78 27.62 7.6 3.620 -0.04 17.63 10.00
11.77 20.18 -0.86 27.89 7.7 3.616 -0.04 17.80 10.09
12.28 20.33 -0.94 28.13 7.8 3.608 -0.05 17.96 10.17
12.79 20.19 -1.00 28.04 7.9 3.571 -0.05 17.95 10.09
13.55 20.28 -1.12 28.26 8.0 3.544 -0.06 18.12 10.14
14.31 20.64 -1.18 28.67 8.0 3.569 -0.06 18.35 10.32
14.81 20.51 -1.22 28.59 8.1 3.538 -0.06 18.33 10.25
15.31 20.80 -1.27 28.92 8.1 3.561 -0.06 18.52 10.40
page 6 of 11

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.3
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864
Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)63.9 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 13.9 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)97 Final Burette Reading (ml)6.7
Final Change (ml)17.3
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)24
P =17.51 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 23
Q =10.27 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)28
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
11.7 0.000 50.0
22.7 0.002 50.5
36.6 0.003 50.9
66.0 0.009 52.6
80.2 0.013 53.7
90.7 0.020 54.5102.2 0.029 55.3110.8 0.038 55.8
118.5 0.050 56.3
127.0 0.071 56.6
133.3 0.101 56.9
136.1 0.137 56.9
139.8 0.173 56.9
143.5 0.215 56.7
146.1 0.245 56.6
148.5 0.287 56.5
152.3 0.344 56.4
157.2 0.404 56.2
159.3 0.449 56.2
162.6 0.509 56.0
165.5 0.554 56.0
168.2 0.599 55.9
170.7 0.644 55.8
172.7 0.674 55.7
174.9 0.704 55.7
176.6 0.734 55.6
178.5 0.764 55.6
180.8 0.810 55.5
182.7 0.854 55.4
184.0 0.885 55.3
186.1 0.914 55.3
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
page 7 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)13.9 Stage No.1
Test No 3
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)37.58
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.99
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.274
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.03 1.74 0.46 15.17 13.4 1.130 0.27 14.30 0.87
0.05 3.96 0.92 16.92 13.0 1.305 0.24 14.94 1.98
0.15 8.64 2.61 19.91 11.3 1.766 0.31 15.59 4.32
0.22 10.89 3.73 21.04 10.1 2.073 0.35 15.59 5.44
0.34 12.55 4.52 21.91 9.4 2.341 0.37 15.64 6.280.49 14.35 5.30 22.93 8.6 2.673 0.38 15.75 7.180.63 15.69 5.81 23.76 8.1 2.943 0.38 15.91 7.84
0.84 16.88 6.25 24.51 7.6 3.212 0.38 16.07 8.44
1.18 18.15 6.62 25.41 7.3 3.501 0.38 16.33 9.08
1.68 19.05 6.95 25.98 6.9 3.748 0.38 16.46 9.52
2.29 19.37 6.94 26.31 6.9 3.791 0.37 16.62 9.69
2.88 19.82 6.87 26.83 7.0 3.825 0.36 16.92 9.91
3.59 20.25 6.75 27.38 7.1 3.838 0.34 17.26 10.12
4.08 20.54 6.65 27.78 7.2 3.840 0.33 17.51 10.27
4.79 20.75 6.53 28.10 7.3 3.824 0.32 17.72 10.38
5.73 21.13 6.38 28.63 7.5 3.816 0.31 18.06 10.56
6.74 21.63 6.24 29.27 7.6 3.832 0.30 18.45 10.81
7.50 21.76 6.15 29.49 7.7 3.816 0.29 18.61 10.88
8.50 22.01 6.04 29.85 7.8 3.807 0.28 18.85 11.01
9.24 22.24 5.96 30.16 7.9 3.808 0.28 19.04 11.12
10.00 22.45 5.88 30.46 8.0 3.805 0.27 19.23 11.23
10.75 22.61 5.81 30.68 8.1 3.802 0.26 19.38 11.31
11.25 22.77 5.75 30.91 8.1 3.800 0.26 19.52 11.39
11.76 22.95 5.70 31.13 8.2 3.806 0.26 19.65 11.47
12.25 23.07 5.63 31.31 8.2 3.797 0.25 19.78 11.53
12.76 23.19 5.59 31.49 8.3 3.796 0.25 19.89 11.60
13.51 23.31 5.50 31.69 8.4 3.781 0.24 20.03 11.65
14.26 23.37 5.41 31.84 8.5 3.759 0.24 20.15 11.68
14.77 23.40 5.35 31.93 8.5 3.742 0.24 20.23 11.70
15.26 23.55 5.30 32.13 8.6 3.743 0.23 20.36 11.77
page 8 of 11

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.: B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID: R-2018-064-001-001
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
Tested By: MY Date: 3/15/18 Approved By: MPS Date: 3/22/18
page 9 of 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
024681012141618Deviator Stress (psi)Strain (%)
Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009
Project No.: R-2018-064-001
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001 Specific Gravity (assumed) 2.7
Visual Description: BROWN SANDY CLAY (REMOLDED)
SAMPLE CONDITION SUMMARY
Boring No.:B-30 B-30 B-30
Depth (ft):1.0-7.9 1.0-7.9 1.0-7.9
Sample No.:1 1 1
Test No.T1 T2 T3
Deformation Rate (in/min)0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
Back Pressure (psi)50.0 50.0 50.0
Consolidation Time (days)1 1 1
Moisture Content (%) (INITIAL)10.8 10.8 10.8
Total Unit Weight (pcf)130.8 130.4 129.2
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)118.0 117.7 116.6
Moisture Content (%) (FINAL)16.4 16.1 16.3
Initial State Void Ratio,e 0.428 0.432 0.445
Void Ratio at Shear, e 0.419 0.413 0.407
Tested By:MY Date: 3/15/18 Input Checked By: GEM Date: 3/22/18
page 10 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-30
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-7.9
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 1
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-001
TEST 1 INITIAL TEST 1 FINAL
TEST 2 INITIAL TEST 2 FINAL
TEST 3 INITIAL TEST 3 FINAL
Tested By MY Date 3/15/18 Approved By MPS Date 3/22/18
page 11 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-001 SIGMATRIAX.xlsm]THIRD
N/A
N/A
N/A

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-32
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-8.5
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 2
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-002 Soil Color Brown
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER
USCS cobbles gravel sand silt and clay fraction
USDA cobbles gravel sand silt clay
USCS Summary
Sieve Sizes (mm) Percentage
Greater Than #4 Gravel 3.69
#4 To #200 Sand 52.86
Finer Than #200 Silt & Clay 43.45
USCS Symbol SC, TESTED
USCS Classification CLAYEY SAND
page 1 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.11101001000Percent Finer By WeightParticle Diameter (mm)
12" 6" 3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #140 #200

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
USDA CLASSIFICATION CHART
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-32
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-8.5
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 2
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-002 Soil Color Brown
Particle Percent USDA SUMMARY Actual Corrected % of Minus 2.0 mm
Size (mm)Finer Percentage material for USDA Classificat.
Gravel 8.19 0.00
2 91.81 Sand 54.79 59.68
0.05 37.01 Silt 28.09 30.60
0.002 8.92 Clay 8.92 9.72
USDA Classification: SANDY LOAM
page 2 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1
0102030405060708090100
PERCENT SAND
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 90
8
7
6
5
4
3
20
10
CLAY
SANDY
CLAY
SANDY CLAY LOAM
SANDY LOAM
SAND
LOAM
SILT LOAM
SILT
CLAY LOAM
SILTY CLAY LOAM
SILTY CLAY
LOAMY
SAND
PERCENT SILT
PERCENT CLAY

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.B-32
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-8.5
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 2
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-002 Soil Color Brown
Minus #10 for Hygroscopic Moisture Content Hydrometer Specimen Data
Tare No.E-20 Air Dried - #10 Hydrometer Material (g)61.53
Wgt.Tare + Wet Soil (g)37.95 Corrected Dry Wt. of - #10 Material (g)59.23
Wgt.Tare + Dry Soil (g)37.35
Weight of Tare (g)21.87 Weight of - #200 Material (g)28.03
Weight of Water (g)0.60 Weight of - #10 ; + #200 Material (g)31.20
Weight of Dry Soil (g)15.48
Moisture Content (%)3.9 J-FACTOR (%FINER THAN #10)0.9181
Soil Specimen Data
Tare No.156
Wgt.Tare + Air Dry Soil (g)1313.76
Weight of Tare (g)240.11
Air Dried Wgt. Total Sample (g) 1073.65 Dry Weight of Material Retained on #10 (g)84.95
Total Dry Sample Weight (g) 1036.76 Corrected Dry Sample Wt - #10 (g)951.81
Sieve Sieve Wgt.of Soil Percent Accumulated Percent Accumulated
Size Opening Retained Retained Percent Finer Percent
(mm)Retained Finer
(gm)(%) (%)(%)(%)
12" 300 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
6" 150 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
3" 75 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
2" 50 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
1 1/2" 37.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
1" 25.0 27.47 2.6 2.6 97.4 97.4
3/4" 19.0 0.00 0.0 2.6 97.4 97.4
1/2" 12.5 4.05 0.4 3.0 97.0 97.0
3/8" 9.50 2.47 0.2 3.3 96.7 96.7
#4 4.75 4.23 0.4 3.7 96.3 96.3
#10 2.00 46.73 4.5 8.2 91.8 91.8
#20 0.85 4.96 8.4 8.4 91.6 84.1
#40 0.425 9.51 16.1 24.4 75.6 69.4
#60 0.250 6.69 11.3 35.7 64.3 59.0
#140 0.106 7.46 12.6 48.3 51.7 47.4
#200 0.075 2.58 4.4 52.7 47.3 43.4
Pan -28.03 47.3 100.0 --
Notes :
Tested By BW Date 3/15/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/19/18
page 3 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
ASTM D 422-63 (2007)
Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-32
Client Reference A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft) 1.0-8.5
Project No.R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 2
Lab ID R-2018-064-001-002 Soil Color Brown
Elapsed R Temp.Composite RNKDiameterN'
Time Measured ( o C )Correction Corrected ( % ) Factor ( mm ) ( % )
(min)
0NANANANANANANANA
2 24.0 21 4.17 19.8 33.1 0.01328 0.0330 30.4
5 20.0 21 4.17 15.8 26.5 0.01328 0.0214 24.3
15 16.0 21.1 4.15 11.8 19.8 0.01327 0.0127 18.2
30 15.0 21.1 4.15 10.8 18.1 0.01327 0.0090 16.6
60 14.0 21.3 4.12 9.9 16.5 0.01324 0.0064 15.2
250 11.0 22 4.00 7.0 11.7 0.01313 0.0032 10.7
1440 9.0 20.8 4.20 4.8 8.0 0.01332 0.0014 7.4
Soil Specimen Data Other Corrections
Wgt. of Dry Material (g) 59.23 Hygroscopic Moisture Factor 0.963
Weight of Deflocculant (g) 5.0
a - Factor 0.99
Percent Finer than # 10 91.81
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Notes:
Tested By BW Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/19/18
page 4 of 4 DCN: CT-S3OR DATE: 7/26/13 REVISION: 8 Z:\2018 PROJECTS\AMECFW\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 SIEVEHYD10.xls]Sheet1

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318-17
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002 Soil Description: BROWN LEAN CLAY
Note: The USCS symbol used with this test refers only to the minus No. 40 ( Minus No. 40 sieve material, Air dried)
sieve material. See the "Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis" graph page for the complete material description.
1 2 3 M
Tare Number:T ID-1U
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 26.92 26.86 26.28 L
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 23.99 23.82 23.32 T
Weight of Tare (g): 15.16 15.24 15.30 I
Weight of Water (g): 2.9 3.0 3.0 P
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 8.8 8.6 8.0 O
Was As Received MC Preserved:I
Moisture Content (%): 33.2 35.4 36.9 N
Number of Blows: 35 24 16 T
Plastic Limit Test 1 2 Range Test Results
Tare Number:17 2M Liquid Limit (%): 35
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g): 21.84 21.87
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g): 20.68 20.75 Plastic Limit (%): 22
Weight of Tare (g): 15.45 15.58
Weight of Water (g): 1.2 1.1 Plasticity Index (%): 13
Weight of Dry Sample (g): 5.2 5.2
USCS Symbol: CL
Moisture Content (%): 22.2 21.7 0.5
Note: The acceptable range of the two Moisture Contents is ± 1.12
Flow Curve Plasticity Chart
Tested By BW Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/14/18
page 1 of 1 DCN: CTS4B, REV. 7, 1/24/18 S:\Excel\Excel QA\Spreadsheets\Limit 3Pt.xls
172.61
676.59
746.94
Liquid Limit TestAs Received Moisture Content
Yes
210
ASTM D2216-10
14.0
504.0
70.4
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
110100Water Content (%)Number of Blows
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20406080100Plasticity Index (%)Liquid Limit (%)
CL CH
MH
CL-ML
ML

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 698-12e2
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.: B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002 Test Method STANDARD
Visual Description: Brown Clayey Sand
Optimum Water Content 12.3
Maximum Dry Density 120.4
Tested By APG Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/15/18
page 1 of 2 DCN:CT-S12 DATE:5/1/13 REVISION: 14 PROCTOR.xls
100
105
110
115
120
125
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Density (pcf)Water Content (%)
Specific Gravity 2.70
Assumed

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 698-12e2
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: Brown Clayey Sand
Total Weight of the Sample (g) 28000 Test Type STANDARD
As Received Water Content (%)NA Rammer Weight (lb)5.5
Assumed Specific Gravity 2.70 Rammer Drop (in)12
Rammer Type MECHANICAL
Percent Retained on 3/4" 0 Machine ID R 174
Percent Retained on 3/8" NA Mold ID R 552
Percent Retained on #4 NA Mold diameter 4"
Oversize Material Not included Weight of the Mold (g)4242
Procedure Used B Volume of the Mold (cm3)943
Mold / Specimen
Point No.123 4 5
Wt. of Mold & Wet Sample (g)6076 6198 6294 6236 6187
Wt.of Mold (g)4242 4242 4242 4242 4242
Wt. of Wet Sample (g)1834 1956 2052 1994 1945
Mold Volume (cm3)943 943 943 943 943
Moisture Content / Density
Tare Number 910 912 905 908 906
Wt. of Tare & Wet Sample (g)492.50 510.20 657.60 603.40 517.40
Wt. of Tare & Dry Sample (g)471.10 476.10 594.00 537.40 453.70
Wt. of Tare (g)103.10 101.00 101.80 102.10 102.50
Wt. of Water (g)21.40 34.10 63.60 66.00 63.70
Wt. of Dry Sample (g)368.00 375.10 492.20 435.30 351.20
Wet Density (g/cm3)1.94 2.07 2.18 2.11 2.06
Wet Density (pcf) 121.3 129.4 135.8 131.9 128.7
Moisture Content (%) 5.8 9.1 12.9 15.2 18.1
Dry Density (pcf) 114.6 118.6 120.2 114.6 108.9
Zero Air Voids
Moisture Content (%)14.0 18.0 21.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)122.3 113.4 107.5
Tested By APG Date 3/13/18 Checked By GEM Date 3/15/18
page 2 of 2 DCN:CT-S12 DATE:5/1/13 REVISION: 14 PROCTOR.xls

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.B-32
Client Project A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft.)1.0-8.5
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 2
Lab ID No. R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: Brown Silty Sand
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 6.3E-07 cm/sec @ 20oC
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 6.3E-09 m/sec @ 20oC
Tested By: MY Date: 3/26/18 Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
Page 1 of 3 DCN: CT-22A DATE:2-2-10 REVISION: 5ers\GEOLAPTOP-3\Desktop\work\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 Permometer.xlsm]Sheet1
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
PERMOMETER METHOD
ASTM D 5084-16a
1.0E-09
1.0E-08
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5PERMEABILITY, cm/secELAPSED TIME, min
PERMEABILITY vs. TIME

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-32
Client Project A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft.) 1.0-8.5
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 2
Lab ID No. R-2018-064-001-002
Specific Gravity 2.70 Assumed
Sample Condition Remolded
Visual Description: Brown Silty Sand
MOISTURE CONTENT:BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
Tare Number TB-07 SS-3
Wt. of Tare & WS (gm.)425.27 693.53
Wt. of Tare & DS (gm.)392.90 603.79
Wt. of Tare (gm.)134.15 100.47
Wt. of Water (gm.)32.37 89.74
Wt. of DS (gm.)258.75 503.32
Moisture Content (%)12.5 17.8
SPECIMEN:BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST
Wt. of Tube & WS (gm.)2867.47 NA
Wt. of Tube (gm.)1551.40 NA
Wt. of WS (calc.) (gm.)1316.07 1378.29
Length 1 (in.)5.995 5.993
Length 2 (in.)5.995 5.993
Length 3 (in.)5.995 5.993
Top Diameter (in.)2.864 2.853
Middle Diameter (in.)2.864 2.853
Bottom Diameter (in.)2.864 2.853
Average Length (in.)6.00 5.99
Average Area (in.2 )6.44 6.39
Sample Volume (cm3 )632.89 627.83
Unit Wet Wt. (gm./ cm3 )2.079 2.195
Unit Wet Wt. (pcf ) 129.8 137.0
Unit Dry Wt. (pcf ) 115.4 116.3
Unit Dry Wt. (gm./ cm3 )1.848 1.863
Void Ratio, e 0.461 0.449
Porosity, n 0.315 0.310
Pore Volume (cm3 )199.7 194.6
Total Wt. Of Sample After Test 1316.07
Tested By: MY Date: 3/26/18 Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
Page 2 of 3 DCN: CT-22A DATE:2-2-10 REVISION: 5ers\GEOLAPTOP-3\Desktop\work\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 Permometer.xlsm]Sheet1
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
PERMOMETER METHOD
ASTM D 5084-16a

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

Client Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No. B-32
Client Project A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft.) 1.0-8.5
Project No. R-2018-064-001 Sample No. 2
Lab ID No. R-2018-064-001-002
Test Pressures Final Sample Dimensions
Cell Pressure(psi)53.5 Sample Length (cm), L 15.22
Back Pressure(psi)50.0 Sample Area (cm2 ), A 41.24
Eff. Cons. Pressure(psi) 3.5 Pipette Area (cm2 ), ap 0.03142
Response (%) 96 Annulus Area (cm2 ), aa 0.76712
Equilibrium Level (cm), Req 1
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 6.3E-07 cm/sec @ 20oC
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY = 6.3E-09 m/sec @ 20oC
DATE ELAPSED PIPETTE INCREMENT TEMP. INCREMENTAL
TIME READI NG GRADIENT PERMEABILITY
tRp i @ 20oC
(mm/dd/yy) (hr) (min) (sec) (min) (min) (cm) (cm/cm)( oC)(cm/sec)
3/27/18 16 8 34 8.57 0.000 12.0 9.4 22.4 NA
3/27/18 16 8 44 8.73 0.167 11.9 9.4 22.4 7.7E-07
3/27/18 16 8 55 8.92 0.350 11.8 9.3 22.4 7.0E-07
3/27/18 16 9 6 9.10 0.533 11.7 9.2 22.4 7.1E-07
3/27/18 16 9 18 9.30 0.733 11.6 9.1 22.4 6.6E-07
3/27/18 16 9 31 9.52 0.950 11.5 9.0 22.4 6.1E-07
3/27/18 16 9 44 9.73 1.167 11.4 8.9 22.4 6.2E-07
3/27/18 16 9 57 9.95 1.383 11.3 8.8 22.4 6.2E-07
3/27/18 16 10 10 10.17 1.600 11.2 8.8 22.4 6.3E-07
3/27/18 16 10 23 10.38 1.817 11.1 8.7 22.4 6.4E-07
3/27/18 16 10 36 10.60 2.033 11.0 8.6 22.4 6.4E-07
Tested By: MY Date: 3/26/18 Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
Page 3 of 3 DCN: CT-22A DATE:2-2-10 REVISION: 5ers\GEOLAPTOP-3\Desktop\work\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 Permometer.xlsm]Sheet1
TIME
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST
PERMOMETER METHOD
ASTM D 5084-16a

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
a =0.52 C =0.63
α =29.4 Φ =34.32
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Approved By: MPS Date: 3/30/18
page 1 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 Sigmatriax.xls
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Q, (psi)P, (psi)
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Test with Pore Pressure
Max. Effec. Stress Ratio Points Failure Envelope Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3
α

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

MOHR TOTAL STRENGTH ENVELOPE
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Failure Based on Maximum Effective Principal Stress Ratio NOTE: GRAPH NOT TO SCALE
Tested By:MY Date:3/22/18 Approved By: MPS Date:3/30/18
page 2 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40τ(psi)σ (psi)
c =
Φ =
3.36
9.54

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.1
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864
Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)53.5 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 3.5 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)96 Final Burette Reading (ml)16.5
Final Change (ml)7.5
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)102
P =7.34 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 102
Q =4.66 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)104
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
10.5 0.000 50.0
16.0 0.001 50.2
22.9 0.002 50.4
38.5 0.008 51.0
46.5 0.015 51.2
52.7 0.020 51.259.4 0.029 51.164.9 0.038 51.0
70.3 0.049 50.8
76.2 0.069 50.4
80.9 0.098 50.1
84.8 0.134 49.7
87.8 0.170 49.5
90.7 0.211 49.3
92.9 0.241 49.1
95.4 0.283 48.9
98.9 0.338 48.7
102.2 0.397 48.6
104.9 0.443 48.4
108.2 0.501 48.3
110.5 0.545 48.2
113.0 0.589 48.1
115.4 0.634 48.0
117.0 0.664 47.9
118.6 0.693 47.7
120.0 0.723 47.7
121.5 0.752 47.6
123.6 0.796 47.5
125.9 0.841 47.4
127.5 0.872 47.4
128.9 0.901 47.3
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Input Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
page 3 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 Sigmatriax.xls

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)3.5 Stage No.1
Test No 1
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.16
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.99
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.368
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.01 0.86 0.19 4.13 3.3 1.264 0.23 3.70 0.43
0.04 1.96 0.44 4.97 3.0 1.649 0.24 3.99 0.98
0.14 4.40 1.01 6.85 2.5 2.793 0.24 4.65 2.20
0.24 5.64 1.18 7.92 2.3 3.472 0.22 5.10 2.82
0.34 6.61 1.21 8.85 2.2 3.937 0.19 5.55 3.300.49 7.64 1.14 9.96 2.3 4.293 0.16 6.14 3.820.63 8.49 1.01 10.94 2.5 4.462 0.12 6.70 4.25
0.82 9.32 0.78 11.99 2.7 4.482 0.09 7.34 4.66
1.16 10.20 0.43 13.23 3.0 4.368 0.04 8.13 5.10
1.64 10.88 0.06 14.28 3.4 4.206 0.01 8.84 5.44
2.23 11.41 -0.26 15.12 3.7 4.070 -0.02 9.42 5.70
2.83 11.81 -0.48 15.75 3.9 3.994 -0.04 9.85 5.90
3.53 12.16 -0.72 16.34 4.2 3.907 -0.06 10.26 6.08
4.02 12.43 -0.95 16.83 4.4 3.820 -0.08 10.62 6.21
4.72 12.70 -1.11 17.27 4.6 3.782 -0.09 10.92 6.35
5.64 13.10 -1.28 17.84 4.7 3.764 -0.10 11.29 6.55
6.62 13.46 -1.45 18.37 4.9 3.740 -0.11 11.64 6.73
7.39 13.73 -1.56 18.75 5.0 3.733 -0.12 11.89 6.86
8.36 14.06 -1.70 19.22 5.2 3.724 -0.13 12.19 7.03
9.09 14.29 -1.82 19.57 5.3 3.705 -0.13 12.42 7.14
9.83 14.52 -1.92 19.89 5.4 3.701 -0.14 12.64 7.26
10.59 14.73 -2.02 20.20 5.5 3.690 -0.14 12.84 7.36
11.07 14.87 -2.08 20.41 5.5 3.686 -0.15 12.97 7.44
11.56 15.01 -2.26 20.73 5.7 3.626 -0.16 13.22 7.51
12.06 15.12 -2.32 20.91 5.8 3.614 -0.16 13.34 7.56
12.55 15.25 -2.38 21.09 5.8 3.612 -0.16 13.47 7.63
13.28 15.41 -2.48 21.35 5.9 3.595 -0.17 13.64 7.70
14.04 15.59 -2.56 21.60 6.0 3.590 -0.17 13.81 7.79
14.54 15.70 -2.61 21.77 6.1 3.587 -0.17 13.92 7.85
15.03 15.80 -2.67 21.93 6.1 3.579 -0.18 14.03 7.90
page 4 of 11

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.2
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864
Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)57.0 Avg. Length 5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 7.0 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)97 Final Burette Reading (ml)14.9
Final Change (ml)9.1
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)226
P =8.59 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 226
Q =5.37 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)240
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
8.8 0.000 50.0
9.9 0.002 50.0
11.3 0.003 50.1
45.1 0.009 51.4
56.4 0.015 52.1
64.4 0.021 52.664.5 0.029 53.064.8 0.039 53.3
67.1 0.051 53.6
71.7 0.072 53.8
74.9 0.102 53.8
78.7 0.138 53.8
83.5 0.174 53.6
87.6 0.216 53.3
91.5 0.246 53.0
98.4 0.288 52.7
105.5 0.345 52.3
111.4 0.406 51.9
114.0 0.451 51.7
117.3 0.511 51.4
123.6 0.556 51.2
126.4 0.601 51.0
130.8 0.647 50.8
131.2 0.677 50.7
135.1 0.707 50.5
136.1 0.736 50.4
139.6 0.766 50.3
141.8 0.812 50.2
148.3 0.857 50.0
150.3 0.887 49.9
150.5 0.917 49.8
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Input Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
page 5 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)7.0 Stage No.1
Test No 2
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)38.07
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.98
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.364
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.03 0.17 0.03 7.15 7.0 1.024 0.19 7.07 0.08
0.06 0.40 0.06 7.35 7.0 1.057 0.15 7.15 0.20
0.15 5.69 1.37 11.33 5.6 2.008 0.25 8.48 2.84
0.25 7.45 2.13 12.34 4.9 2.525 0.29 8.61 3.73
0.35 8.71 2.55 13.17 4.5 2.952 0.30 8.82 4.350.49 8.71 3.01 12.71 4.0 3.174 0.36 8.36 4.350.65 8.74 3.33 12.42 3.7 3.374 0.39 8.05 4.37
0.85 9.08 3.59 12.51 3.4 3.651 0.41 7.97 4.54
1.20 9.76 3.79 12.98 3.2 4.034 0.40 8.10 4.88
1.70 10.21 3.83 13.39 3.2 4.210 0.39 8.28 5.10
2.31 10.73 3.79 13.95 3.2 4.330 0.36 8.59 5.37
2.91 11.39 3.59 14.81 3.4 4.326 0.32 9.12 5.69
3.61 11.93 3.27 15.67 3.7 4.185 0.28 9.71 5.96
4.11 12.46 3.03 16.44 4.0 4.128 0.25 10.21 6.23
4.81 13.40 2.70 17.72 4.3 4.105 0.21 11.02 6.70
5.77 14.32 2.32 19.01 4.7 4.050 0.17 11.85 7.16
6.78 15.03 1.90 20.15 5.1 3.938 0.13 12.63 7.51
7.54 15.28 1.69 20.60 5.3 3.870 0.11 12.96 7.64
8.55 15.58 1.41 21.18 5.6 3.783 0.09 13.39 7.79
9.29 16.36 1.18 22.19 5.8 3.804 0.07 14.01 8.18
10.05 16.62 0.99 22.64 6.0 3.759 0.06 14.33 8.31
10.82 17.09 0.77 23.33 6.2 3.739 0.05 14.78 8.54
11.31 17.05 0.67 23.39 6.3 3.688 0.04 14.87 8.52
11.82 17.49 0.53 23.97 6.5 3.699 0.03 15.23 8.75
12.31 17.54 0.44 24.12 6.6 3.669 0.03 15.34 8.77
12.81 17.91 0.30 24.62 6.7 3.670 0.02 15.66 8.96
13.57 18.06 0.18 24.90 6.8 3.642 0.01 15.87 9.03
14.32 18.78 0.01 25.78 7.0 3.683 0.00 16.39 9.39
14.83 18.93 -0.06 26.00 7.1 3.678 0.00 16.53 9.46
15.34 18.84 -0.16 26.02 7.2 3.625 -0.01 16.60 9.42
page 6 of 11

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.:R-2018-064-001 Sample No.:2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Stage No.1 INITIAL SAMPLE DIMENSIONS (in)
Test No.3
Length 1: 5.995 Diameter 1: 2.864
PRESSURES (psi)Length 2: 5.995 Diameter 2: 2.864
Length 3: 5.995 Diameter 3: 2.864
Cell Pressure (psi)64.0 Avg. Length:5.995 Avg. Diam.:2.864
Back Pressure (psi)50.0
Eff. Conf. Pressure (psi) 13.9 VOLUME CHANGE
Pore Pressure Initial Burette Reading (ml)24.0
Response (%)100 Final Burette Reading (ml)9.2
Final Change (ml)14.8
MAXIMUM OBLIQUITY POINTS
Initial Dial Reading (mil)125
P =20.62 Dial Reading After Saturation (mil) 125
Q =12.34 Dial Reading After Consolidation (mil)157
LOAD DEFORMATION PORE PRESSURE
(LB) (IN) (PSI)
10.7 0.000 50.0
15.3 0.002 50.2
34.1 0.002 51.0
76.6 0.009 53.5
95.1 0.014 55.0
106.9 0.020 55.7120.0 0.029 56.3129.1 0.038 56.5
138.1 0.049 56.6
148.2 0.070 56.5
161.0 0.100 56.1
170.4 0.136 55.7
177.6 0.171 55.3
186.1 0.213 54.9
191.0 0.243 54.6
196.8 0.285 54.3
206.9 0.342 53.8
215.1 0.402 53.4
222.1 0.447 53.1
228.3 0.507 52.8
233.6 0.553 52.5
239.2 0.598 52.3
244.4 0.643 52.0
247.5 0.673 51.9
251.2 0.703 51.7
254.2 0.733 51.6
257.2 0.763 51.5
258.9 0.808 51.3
261.7 0.853 51.1
264.9 0.884 50.9
267.5 0.914 50.8
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Input Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
page 7 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.:B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft):1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Effective Confining Pressure (psi)13.9 Stage No.1
Test No 3
INITIAL DIMENSIONS VOLUME CHANGE
Initial Sample Length (in) 6.00 Volume After Consolidation (in3)37.72
Initial Sample Diameter (in)2.86 Length After Consolidation (in)5.96
Initial Sample Area (in2)6.44 Area After Consolidation (in2)6.325
Initial Sample Volume (in3)38.62
Strain Deviation Δ U σ1 σ3 Effective Principle APQ
(%) Stress Stress Ratio
0.03 0.74 0.13 14.54 13.8 1.053 0.18 14.17 0.37
0.04 3.71 0.95 16.69 13.0 1.286 0.26 14.83 1.85
0.15 10.40 3.49 20.84 10.4 1.996 0.34 15.64 5.20
0.24 13.32 4.92 22.33 9.0 2.478 0.37 15.67 6.66
0.34 15.17 5.68 23.42 8.2 2.839 0.37 15.83 7.580.49 17.20 6.27 24.86 7.7 3.244 0.36 16.26 8.600.64 18.60 6.50 26.04 7.4 3.503 0.35 16.74 9.30
0.83 19.97 6.57 27.33 7.4 3.714 0.33 17.35 9.99
1.17 21.48 6.42 29.00 7.5 3.859 0.30 18.26 10.74
1.68 23.37 6.08 31.23 7.9 3.976 0.26 19.54 11.69
2.27 24.67 5.65 32.96 8.3 3.978 0.23 20.62 12.34
2.87 25.63 5.25 34.31 8.7 3.952 0.20 21.49 12.81
3.58 26.75 4.85 35.82 9.1 3.947 0.18 22.45 13.37
4.08 27.34 4.59 36.68 9.3 3.927 0.17 23.01 13.67
4.77 28.03 4.25 37.71 9.7 3.894 0.15 23.70 14.01
5.74 29.24 3.80 39.37 10.1 3.887 0.13 24.75 14.62
6.74 30.14 3.38 40.69 10.5 3.857 0.11 25.62 15.07
7.50 30.92 3.08 41.77 10.8 3.850 0.10 26.31 15.46
8.51 31.48 2.72 42.69 11.2 3.807 0.09 26.95 15.74
9.27 31.97 2.46 43.44 11.5 3.788 0.08 27.45 15.99
10.03 32.50 2.22 44.21 11.7 3.774 0.07 27.96 16.25
10.78 32.96 1.99 44.91 11.9 3.760 0.06 28.42 16.48
11.28 33.22 1.84 45.31 12.1 3.748 0.06 28.70 16.61
11.79 33.55 1.69 45.78 12.2 3.741 0.05 29.01 16.77
12.30 33.77 1.56 46.14 12.4 3.728 0.05 29.26 16.88
12.80 33.98 1.42 46.49 12.5 3.716 0.04 29.50 16.99
13.55 33.92 1.22 46.63 12.7 3.668 0.04 29.67 16.96
14.31 34.01 1.02 46.92 12.9 3.635 0.03 29.91 17.01
14.82 34.24 0.90 47.28 13.0 3.627 0.03 30.16 17.12
15.32 34.39 0.76 47.55 13.2 3.611 0.02 30.36 17.19
page 8 of 11

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.: B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID: R-2018-064-001-002
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
Tested By: MY Date: 3/22/18 Approved By: MPS Date: 3/30/18
page 9 of 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
024681012141618Deviator Stress (psi)Strain (%)
Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test No. 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client:Amec Foster Wheeler
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009
Project No.: R-2018-064-001
Lab ID:R-2018-064-001-002 Specific Gravity (assumed) 2.7
Visual Description: BROWN SILTY SAND (REMOLDED)
SAMPLE CONDITION SUMMARY
Boring No.:B-32 B-32 B-32
Depth (ft):1.0-8.5 1.0-8.5 1.0-8.5
Sample No.:2 2 2
Test No.T1 T2 T3
Deformation Rate (in/min)0.002 0.002 0.002
Back Pressure (psi)50.0 50.0 50.0
Consolidation Time (days)1 1 1
Moisture Content (%) (INITIAL)12.5 12.5 12.5
Total Unit Weight (pcf)129.8 130.2 131.8
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)115.4 115.7 117.2
Moisture Content (%) (FINAL)17.8 17.2 16.2
Initial State Void Ratio,e 0.461 0.456 0.438
Void Ratio at Shear, e 0.444 0.436 0.405
Tested By:MY Date: 3/22/18 Input Checked By: SFS Date: 3/30/18
page 10 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3

2200 Westinghouse Blvd., Suite 103 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechnics.net

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST
WITH PORE PRESSURE READINGS
ASTM D4767-11
Client: Amec Foster Wheeler Boring No.: B-32
Client Reference: A1 Sandrock 6468-18-8009 Depth (ft): 1.0-8.5
Project No.: R-2018-064-001 Sample No.: 2
Lab ID: R-2018-064-001-002
TEST 1 INITIAL TEST 1 FINAL
TEST 2 INITIAL TEST 2 FINAL
TEST 3 INITIAL TEST 3 FINAL
Tested By MY Date 3/22/18 Approved By MPS Date 3/30/18
page 11 of 11 DCN: CT-S28 DATE: 4/12/13 REVISION: 3 C:\Users\GEOLAPTOP-3\Desktop\work\2018-064 AMECFW - A1 SANDROCK\[2018-064-001-002 SIGMATRIAX.xlsm]THIRD
N/A
N/A
N/A