SW-F-8003-MSWLF-1988_Revised_SiteAppReport_1988-06-03

�Ny1svo N ppu u�' d ti
�6 All tW 16
SITE APPLICATION REPORT
ROWAN COUNTY
SANITARY LANDFILL
WHITE/McCLAMROCK TRACTS
/RECEf CFO
OUN 0 3 1983
sTE b
°0���ARO�
J
-1 � t era iS
_Jug
:, °: , r : •, a �, �,.
v.
JUNE, 1988
FOR: ROWAN COUNTY
BY: DEWBERRY & DAVIS
8601 SIX FORKS ROAD
SUITE 400
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
[phone]
ARCHITECTS - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
The following is a conceptual plan for the development of the White Tract as an
active sanitary landfill while utilizing the McClamrock Tract as the required
buffer and monitoring area. For narrative on other information required for
submission of a site plan application to the N.C. Solid & Hazardous Waste
Management Section, the reader is referred to the report entitled - Site
Application - Rowan County Sanitary Landfill - White/McClamrock Tracts -
December 1987.
1. DESCRIPTION OF LAND
The proposed site for active landfilling is approximately 168.5 acres and is
referred to as the WHITE Tract. The proposed site for the required
buffering and monitoring of groundwater is approximately 205 acres and lies
directly adjacent to Second Creek, known as McClamrock Tract. Land slopes
generally to the south and east and is bounded by Second Creek along the
southeast portions of the tracts. Slopes are generally less than 6% except
at the southern portion of the tract which is flat and within the flood
plain. Approximately 90 acres are contained in the flood plain which varies
in width from 300 feet to 1000 feet. The flood plain is wooded. There
exists 3 distinct drainage draws, one bounds the tract along the western
border, one intersects the tract flowing to the south and one drains a
portion of the eastern part of the tract and flows south easterly. All
drainage is to Second Creek. None to very little offsite drainage crosses
the site. The site is bounded by creeks on the southern and eastern sides.
The site location is shown on the following figure.
Setting of the site is rural. Access will be via Campbell Road - SR 1947, a
heavy pavement road 20 feet wide and which also serves a materials hauling
road.
Second Creek (the southern boundary) has a reported 7 day, 10-year low flow
(7Q10) of 10 to 20 cfs and an average flow (Q avg) of 118 cfs. An unnamed
tributary east of the site appears to be a perennial stream.
From the 10 bores on the White property site, including two deep bores (B-1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and MW-2 and 3), it can be seen that groundwater depths at
the bores on the intended active area of the proposed landfill varied from 8
to 46 feet and average over 25 feet.
2. OBJECTIVES
The landfill will be designed to:
1. Provide, to the extent possible, an environmentally compatible and safe
facility.
2. Provide a lined landfill that will use the natural features of the site
to enhance leachate detection and collection and other measures intended
to protect groundwaters.
JUN 88
Rowan County Landfill PAGE-1

O
O
N
c
�N
IL o
Q :00 tY
V-aV61
p
��
01
a=
�3
c
0
N
SPI4
�
n�
Y
04
OZ
�
r
a cn
�l O
r
�N
PQ
� w
Q
72
QQ
i
o,
_i
of $
`R
V
\
S
S' r�nsq
R
11
LL
_
!t
_J
IlL
OV'
co
Od
N
(� IfW
Y •
Zol
( �
V
-
r, '
^ 9 I
4�
'•
C,le
R
•
s
1
ry
gl
o
s,
C,1•

3. Provide a lined landfill that is intended not to receive toxic or
hazardous wastes.
4. Maximize the yield of land thus extending the use of the site as far
into the future as possible.
5. Be as aesthetically pleasing as possible by utilizing natural and
man-made screening, mounding and buffering.
6. Minimize site preparation costs and keep earth moving activities to the
minimum possible with respect to haul distances and handling soil more
than once or twice.
7. Follow a logical and workable pattern of development.
8.. Utilize conventional equipment and methods for routine operations.
3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
For construction and design:
1. With impending closure of the existing landfill this summer (1988)
-design, State approval, materials acquisition, and contracting services
must be expedited.
I
2. The McClamrock Tract is required for: buffer zone, a zone for leachate
attenuation, and for monitoring and for detection.
3. Utilize in -situ soils as base for liner, this may require more soils
identification and testing and modifications of soils during
construction. Permeabilities would be checked by field tests during
construction to make a determination on whether (1) in -situ, (2) onsite,
or (3) offsite soils would be required in preparation of the base and
required depth.
4. Depth to groundwater and designing base of landfill cells to achieve
optimum separation from groundwater while striving for maximum
utilization of site's volume.
5. Protecting groundwater user(s) especially to the east, west and south of
site by appropriate buffering. Adequate land must be acquired or
controlled to protect groundwater and provide for monitoring wells for
leachate detection.
6. Locating landfill entrance(s) at point affording best visual distances
for vehicle safety.
7. Including a demolition landfill (cells probably utilizing the trench
method) as part of the site and at the appropriate location(s) so as to
effect additional groundwater buffering and maximize the demolition
landfill usefulness/accessibility on site.
JUN 88
Rowan County Landfill PAGE-2

8. Utilize to extent possible both the Area fill and Trench methods of
landfilling to maximize use of the land resource.
9. Design the landfill such that upon closure and after closure the areas
former use will not be easily recognized and the,land can be converted
to some low level beneficial use.
10. Provide impervious cap on completed cells to reduce possibility of
further water intrusion and subsequent leachate production.
For operation and maintenance:
1. Design the landfill such that leachate migration (should it eventuate)
will be detectable and will accommodate to the extent possible easily
implementable mitigating measures.
2. Provide easy and logical access to the progressive phases of the
landfill.
3. Keep soil haul distances to minimum and to grade or to downgrade to
extent possible.
4. Keep excavation depths to levels workable with conventional scraper and
backhoe equipment for trench cells.
5. Design phases such that encounters with rock removal may be avoided or
lessened.
6. Provide movable windscreens to capture windblown debris. Maintain
screening mounds and vegetative screening.
7. Restore with vegetative cover as soon as practicable those exposed areas
that are completed.
8. Provide gas venting utilizing porous (stone) vents for future gas
recovery, or wasting and to accommodate vent gas testing.
For closure:
1. Cells will be covered with an impervious cap and 2 feet of final cover
progressively throughout the operating life of the landfill.
2. Erosion control structures built at the beginning and during the life of
the project will be maintained for a period after closure.
3. Methane generation recovery feasibility will be investigated during the
active life and upon closure of the landfill.
4. Monitoring wells will be maintained after closure for the statutory
period or until it is adequately demonstrated that leachate production
is low or nil.
JUN 88
Rowan County Landfill PAGE-3

5. The closed landfill will be visually inspected for settlement, cracking,
and leakage during the post closure period at intervals (perhaps once
per year) for real or impending problems.
4. CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL DESIGN
Development of the landfill will utilize both the Area and Trench methods.
It is intended that a cell to receive solid wastes be sized for up to 2
years life. Cells designated for demolition wastes will be of the trench
method design. Demolition areas will be designated and so placed as to
provide buffer between sanitary solid waste cells and surface/ground water
courses. Demolition areas are to be designated and thus these wastes
segregated for the purpose of extending the life of the sanitary landfill
portions of the site. Demolition waste areas, it is intended, will not be
subject to the 6 inch daily cover requirements.
Rowan County presently generates an estimated 155 tons per day which
translates into a need for approximately 390 cubic yards of inplace
compacted waste per day, assuming a conservation compactibility of 800 lbs
per cubic yard. Soil requirements for daily cover are estimated to be 1:8
ratio, i.e., for every 8 c.y. of inplace waste 1 c.y. of soil will be
required. Other soil requirements will be for embankment construction and
visual buffering mounds. Based upon typical landfill operations overall
soils requirements, it is estimated, will be 1:4 (soils to inplace waste).
To mitigate the possibility of groundwater contamination, the following
strategies were or are to be included:
1. This site was specifically selected due to its proximity to Second
Creek, the adjacent unnamed tributary, the extensive flood plain
(buffer) and remoteness, with the principal objective that it was the
most ideal site in Rowan County to protect groundwaters due to these
natural features.
2. Cells will generally start on higher ground with surface drainage
diverted around active and future cells.
3. Completed cells will be capped with a synthetic membrane to preclude
water entry into the cells and thus reduce the potential for leachate
generation, and then covered with 2 feet of soil cover and a vegetative
cover established.
4. Campbell Road along the northern periphery of the site, is a drainage
divide, thus surface waters falling on the site are the only surface
water of concern.
5. The extensive flood plain will be reserved for monitoring and for
attenuation of potential leachate.
6. The "perimeter of compliance" is proposed as far from the wastes as
permitted in the regulations, and an interior set of monitoring wells
are proposed to detect groundwater contamination from landfill leachate
far back enough for early detection.
JUN 88
Rowan County Landfill PAGE-4

7. On site soils will be investigated for suitable impermeability at the
base of each cell and modifications, repair, or replacement of soils at
the basal region will be made accordingly.
8. Buffers to streams, drainage draws, and property lines will meet or
exceed the written minimum regulatory requirements.
9. Storm water detention lagoons will be installed to capture silts and
landfill runoff. Should contamination be detected an NPDES permit will
be sought and treatment will be proposed.
10. Separate biological treatment will be proposed for leachate collected
from completed and active sanitary waste cells. Constructing leachate
treatment facilities should be deferred until characteristics of the
leachate can be determined. It is anticipated it will take 6 months or
more for an assessment of leachate character. In the interim leachate
should be pumped and removed by truck for controlled discharge into a
municipal wastewater treatment facility.
Additionally, the landfill will have a weigh station and small office. An
equipment storage area will be designated adequate to accommodate a
maintenance building to be built in the future.
5. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In discussions with the Solid & Hazardous Waste Section, the County has
begun to perform an intensive review and investigation of the technique of
baling the majority of the solid waste as a method to reduce the volume of
possible leachate generation from the sanitary landfill. It is believed
that baling may significantly reduce leachate generation and thus lessen the
potential for groundwater contamination. It is the County's intent that
favorable consideration would be given at a later date to any modification
to the design and operational plan if the concept of baling provides a
positive benefit and is compatible with Solid Waste regulations.
Further, Rowan County intends to undergo a comprehensive waste management
study which will encompass: Source Separation, Recycling, Conservation,
Public Awareness, modifications to collection, handling and transport of
solid wastes and cogeneration.
Indeed, the County has undertaken a recycling pilot project with 5
collection centers and has applied for a grant.
Rowan County has already investigated the possibility of incineration/
cogeneration, upon which implementation is a very complicated environmental,
economic and funding matter. It would be intended to utilize the proposed
landfill for residue disposal upon implementation of an
incineration/cogeneration facility.
JUN 88
Rowan County Landfill PAGE-5

PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL
SITE EVALUATION
WHITE/McCLAM ROCK PROPERTY
ROWAN COUNTRY, NORTH CAROLINA
June 2, 1988
Prepared For
Rowan County
Salisbury, North Carolina
Prepared By
Aquaterra, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Aquaterra, Inc.

= J AQLL4TERDN
Aquaterra, Inc. • P.O. Box 50328 • Raleigh, NC 27650.919-839-0199
June 2, 1988
Rowan County
212 N. Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Attention: Mr. Tim Russell
Subject: Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White/McClamrock Property, Rowan County, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job #200-87-106
Dear Mr. Russell:
Based upon a May 20, 1988, meeting with Mr. William Meyer, Mr. Gordon Layton and Mr. Mike
Babuin of the North Carolina Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch, it was Rowan
County's decision to pursue a site approval application for an active sanitary landfill at the White
property only, which is shown in Figure 1, and utilize the McClamrock property for leachate
detection attenuation and buffer. This site evaluation will be largely collected from the existing
correspondence on August 7, 1987, to Rowan County, which is contained in Attachment A. Also,
further discussion will be prepared to discuss the details mentioned in Mr. Gerald Horton's
(Dewberry & Davis) May 17, 1988, correspondence to Aquaterra. These items are:
o Present ground water levels on the White tract (it may be beneficial to check the
ground water levels for the McClamrock tract also).
o Prepare or verify the ground water elevations in the previously submitted tables as
separate pages.
o Provide basal liner recommendations.
o Establish ground water flow direction, both shallow and deep, and relate this to
buffer needs.
Herein is contained details of the site investigation for the White property along with the
assessment items presented above.

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White Property, Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 2
1.0 Site Investigation
The proposed site lies in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. According to
geologic mapping prepared by the North Carolina Geologic Survey, the site lies in a suite of rocks
known as the Charlotte Belt. It is composed mostly of igneous rocks that form a complex mixture
of granites, diorites and gabbros that have intruded medium to high grade metamorphic rocks,
mostly felsic and mafic gneisses and schists that apparently originated from sedimentary and
volcanic rocks.
Topographically, the site is dominated first by one north -south trending drainage with two ridges
trending northeast to southwest and northwest to southeast. Topography at the site varies from a
relatively large ridge at 760 feet above mean sea level (MSL) sloping to the south and southeast to
an elevation below 640 feet MSL at Second Creek which is a perennial stream bordering the
southeast property line.
1.2 Field Exploration
As referenced in the previous correspondence, sixteen soil test borings were emplaced with ten
located on the White property. To further detail on their emplacement, please refer to Attachment
A. Cross -sections were drawn through the site which are documented in the October 30, 1987,
correspondence, shown in Attachment B.
To verify ground water elevations and shallow and deep ground water flow directions, a geologist
was dispatched on June 1, 1988, to measure water levels on all existing monitor wells and
piezometers. Of the eight piezometers constructed on the White property, four piezometers (B-2,
B-3, B-4 and B-6) apparently had been vandalized and could not be used to collect ground water
data, one piezometer (B-8) could not be located, and the three remaining piezometers (B-1, B-5
and B-7) were dry. Boring B-6 has been corrected from the August 7, 1987 report and is included
in Attachment A. Of the eight piezometers constructed on the McClamrock property, one (B-15)
could not be located, one (B-13) was found to have water and the remaining piezometers (B-10, B-
11, B-12, B-14 and B-16) were dry. The three deep ground water monitoring wells were located
and ground water levels were measured. All data collected is shown in Table 1. Based upon the
lack of ground water data obtained from the piezometers, a current shallow ground water contour
map could not be constructed. However, a shallow ground water contour map, based upon data
collected on August 4, 1987 and shown in Table 2, was constructed and is shown in Figure 2.
Utilizing the water levels collected from the deep ground water monitoring wells shown in Table 1,
a deep ground water contour map was constructed and is shown in Figure 3.
1.3 Geophysical Investigation
This was conducted on June 17 and July 8, 1987, and is documented in Attachment A (Section
1.3).
Aquaterra, Inc.

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White Property, Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 3
2.0 Evaluation of Site
We will consider ground water, excavation, availability and suitability of cover soils, hydraulic
conductivity of the landfill base, recommendations for landfill construction and ground water
monitoring.
2.1 Ground Water
Ground water was not observed in the piezometers located on the White's property. Assuming
that the ground water is just below the bottom elevation of the piezometers that were located on
the White's property, the ground water levels ranged from 11.5 to 49.0 feet below land surface.
Ground water levels may be expected to fluctuate due to rainfall, temperature, season surface
drainage, infiltration and other factors. The shallow piezometers (B-7 and B-8) both lie in the
relatively flat floodplain of Second Creek. Assuming that no excavation is required in this area, the
maximum depth of excavation for this site will be between 9 and 45 feet, based upon the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources requirement that the bottom of the landfill be a
minimum of four feet above the real or estimated ground water level.
The ground water flow direction calculated in the shallow water table, based on the 8-4-87 data,
and the deep water table, based on the 6-1-88 data, were in a southeasterly direction. The average
hydraulic gradient for the shallow water table was .07 ft/ft while the deep aquifer had a hydraulic
gradient of .02 ft/ft.
2.2 Ground Water Monitoring Wells
A two -system monitoring well plan is proposed for the landfill. The first line of shallow monitoring
wells will be approximately 50 feet from the landfill cells and lagoon slope toes. A second line of
shallow wells will be 250 feet from the landfill cells and lagoon slope toes.
The first line of monitoring wells will be called detection wells. The second line of monitoring wells
will be called compliance wells, and these wells will satisfy the Division of Environmental
Management requirements for compliance wells (NCAC 15, Subchapter 2L -- Groundwater
Classification and Standards, Section 103-General Rules (h), Perimeter of Compliance: Existing
and New Facilities (4)).
The approximate location of these wells are shown on a plate in the Dewberry and Davis report of
which this document is an attachment. The wells are all proposed as shallow wells. Should
contamination be detected at a later date, a deeper well will be placed to define the vertical
movement of the contamination.
We proposed to monitor the detection wells for the following constituents annually. These
constituents are:
Aquaterra, Inc.

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White Property, Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 4
arsenic
chloride
barium
fluoride
cadmium
nitrate
chromium
sulfate
copper
TDS
iron
TOC
lead
BOD
manganese
COD
mercury
TOX
selenium
pH
silver
specific conductance
zinc
Should positive results indicate contamination of an organic nature, a GC/MS analysis (SW 846
Methods 8240 and 8270) will be run to identify the organic constituents.
Annual samples from the compliance wells will be analyzed for specific conductance, TOG and
TOX. Should a detection well(s) indicate contamination, the corresponding compliance well(s)
analysis will go from three constituents to the 22 listed above.
2.3 Hydraulic Conductivity of the Landfill Base
In addition to the laboratory work, two in -situ recovery tests were conducted in borings B-4 and B-
7 on the White property. The results of the recovery tests are tabulated below:
Hydraulic Conductivity
Borinq Unit Depth cm sec ft/day
B-4 Basal Soil 11.5-13.5 3.68 x 10-5 1.04 x 10-1
B-7 Basal Soil 9.5-11.5 5.73 x 10-5 1.63 x 10-1
The recovery test data are contained in Attachment E of the October 30, 1987 report contained in
Attachment A of this June, 1988 report.
2.4 Availability and Suitability of Cover Soils
Three soil samples of representative cover soils and one sample to represent near the proposed
landfill base from the White property were analyzed for grain size distribution and Atterberg limits.
The data are in Attachment C of the Aquaterra October 30, 1987 report contained in Attachment A
of this June 3, 1988 report.
One representative sample of the cover soils (B-6) at 0 to 2.0 feet was remolded at 95 percent
Standard Proctor and a falling head hydraulic conductivity test conducted on the remolded
sample. A hydraulic conductivity of 2.0 x 10-6 cm/sec (5.7 x 10-3 ft/day) was obtained. The
sample had a total porosity of 38.6 percent and a void ratio of 0.628 (see Attachment D of the
October 30, 1987 report contained in Attachment A of this June, 1988 report).
Aquaterra, Inc.

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White Property, Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 5
The soils appear suitable for a daily soil cover with the minimal amount of compaction available
with typical landfill equipment. There are sufficient volumes of soils based on the present number
of borings to provide the daily soil cover.
The compaction of the soils to 95 percent Standard Proctor resulted in a hydraulic conductivity of
2 x 10-6 cm/sec. The soils compacted to 95 percent Standard Proctor are approximately 18 to 28
times less permeable than the non -compacted soils. In general, an "impermeable" liner needs to
be two to three magnitudes (100 to 1000) times less permeable than the drain or underlying soils to
be effective. It appears that the recompacted soils are not much more effective as a liner than the
non -compacted in -situ soils.
2.5 Recommendations for Landfill Liner/Cover
A typical liner and leachate collection system, as shown in Figure 4, for a landfill consist of the
following items from bottom to top:
1. A firm, smooth graded base of compacted soil, preferably a low hydraulic
conductivity soil. The base should be between 12 to 18 inches thick with no
stones larger than 1 inch in diameter and free of roots, branches and other similar
materials that could rupture the liner.
2. A synthetic liner between 30 to 60 mils thickness is placed on top of the final grade
base material. The edges of the liner are anchored in shallow trenches. If the liner
material is PVC or PE, the leachate collection soils need to be placed quickly to
prevent deterioration from ozone and ultraviolet exposure.
3. On top of the synthetic liner, a geotextile fabric is placed to protect the liner from
puncture by the leachate collection soils and eliminate the need for a graded filter.
4. A leachate collection system consisting of a drainage layer at least one foot thick,
a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-3 cm/sec or greater and a minimum slope of two
percent is placed over the geotextile.
The purpose of the leachate collection system is to maintain a leachate depth of
one foot or less above the liner and to withstand clogging, chemical attack and the
forces exerted by the wastes, equipment and soil cover. It may be necessary to
install pipe drains inside the drainage layer to aid in the leachate removal.
5. A geotextile is placed over the drainage layer to prevent clogging of the drain from
infiltration of fines from the waste.
6. A coarse gravel layer is placed over the geotextile to protect the fabric and carry
the load of the equipment. In general, the thickness of this layer is between 12 to
18 inches.
Aquaterra, Inc.

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White Property, Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 6
After the landfill is closed, a cover must be installed that minimizes the infiltration of water into the
landfill. Critical to the success of the landfill cover is the amount of settlement that will occur in the
refuse. It is extremely important to compact the refuse and the daily soil covers to minimize
settlement. A cover normally consists of the following layers from bottom (top of last waste/soil
layer to the top of seeded topsoil). The layers of the cover are shown in Figure 4.
The cover layer consists of:
1. a geotextile fabric overlying the last compacted soil cover for the refuse;
2. a gas drainage layer and vent system consisting of a high hydraulic conductivity
gravel (the gas drainage layer will be used to adjust a final cover grade);
3. a geotextile overlying the gas drain;
4. a synthetic 30 mil PVC liner;
5. a geotextile overlying the PVC liner;
6. a drainage layer of 12 to 18 inches gravel to rapidly remove any infiltrating water
from rain or snow;
7. a geotextile overlying the water drainage layer; and
8. topsoil two feet thick, seeded with shallow root system plants. If the landfill is to
have minimal maintenance with the possibility of deep rooted vegetation, the soil
cover thickness needs to be increased to maintain the integrity of the cover.
An estimate of costs for a liner and cover system has been prepared using published costs for
liners, drains, geotextile fabrics, etc. installed (Table 1). The costs are in 1986 dollars and are from
U.S. EPA, 1987, Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action Technologies, Technology Transfer,
EPA/625/6-87-015, January. The cost will need to be adjusted once costs for Rowan County are
obtained.
Aquaterra. Inc.

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White Property, Rowan County, North Carolina
Page 7
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
AQUATI= W'A;� T"',
�i1Tii/
$E '1
��'J =�
=�� '•FCC OG�S••��l
O '
D. T RO-
Bryson Mee,llr., Ph.D., P.G.
Sew
. •\�ENSF•�9 s
%iO.y�••OCOG� •'�
Phillip f_:'Rt�lttf,`1�.G.
President
BDT/PLR/Itr
Attachments
R217-88
Aquaterra, Inc.

TABLES

TABLE 1
Ground Water Levels as of 6-1-88
White/McClamrock Properties
Boring
Boring
Ground Water
Ground
Ground Water
Number
Depth
Depth (Ground)
Elevation
Elevation
B-1
25.5
Dry @ 25.0
184.0
Dry @ 159.0
B-2
44.4
*
175.5
B-3
41.01
*
193.0
B-4
13.5
*
152.4
B-5
49.0
Dry @ 49.0
176.8
Dry @ 127.8
B-6
21.0
*
192.6
B-7
11.5
Dry @ 11.72
92.4
Dry @ 80.68
B-8
11.5
**
100.8
**
B-9
43.5
Dry @ 43.7
166.4
Dry @ 122.7
B-10
23.5
Dry @ 21.22
136.5
Dry @ 115.28
B-11
25.0
Dry @ 22.43
115.4
Dry @ 92.97
B-12
33.5
Dry @ 33.44
150.4
Dry @ 116.96
B-13
28.5
28.28
166.3
138.02
B-14
13.5
Dry @ 13.82
110.3
96.48
B-15
15.0
**
101.3
**
B-16
13.5
Dry @ 9.95
116.7
Dry @ 106.75
MW-1
52.0
6.28
117.0
110.72
MW-2
96.5
54.28
176.9
122.62
M W-3
120.0
24.48
184.1
159.62
*Denotes piezometers that were vandalized
**Denotes piezometers that were not found

TABLE 1
Ground Water Level Measurements
White Property
Rowan County, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job #200-87-106
JUL 261988
Boring
Boring
Ground Water
Ground
Ground Water
Proposed Seasonal
Number
Depth
Depth (Ground)
Elevation
Elevation
High Ground Water Elev.
B-1
25.5
23.45
184.0
160.55
164.55
B-2
44.4
115.5
w
B-3
41.01
39.88
193.0
153.12
157.12
B-4
13.5
152.4
13-5
49.0
Dry (� 49.0
176.8
127.8
131.8
13-6
21.0
18,95
192.6
173.65
177.65
B-7
11.5
6.26
92.4
86.14
00.14
B-8
11.5
7.21
100.8
93.59
97.59
6-9
43.5
31,97
166.4
134.43
130.43
5-10
23.5
Dry 0 23-5
136.5
113.0
117.0
B-11
25.0
16.05
115.4
99.35
103.35
B-12
33.5
31.98
150.4
118.42
122.42
B-13
28.5
27.73
166.3
138.57
142.57
B-14
13.5
9.2
110.3
101.1
105.1
5-15
15.0
9.76
101.3
91.54
95.54
B-16
13.5
5,25
116.7
111.45
115,45
MWA
52.0
6.90
117.0
110.10
114.10
MW-2
96.5
50.67
176.9
126,23
130.23
M W-3
120.0
25.78
184.1
158.32
162.32
*Denotes wells that were destroyed by the farming operation before water levels could be measured.
I<r orb 417 __- PHLcii. "-
; h -1�,e ice! B 7
<S rq 0 P a)
z Od Z 0 0 ON HJ I 31Hc1 ON I v88Divnob Z S: 1 1 9 Z-L O-9 9 6 I

TABLE 2
Ground Water Levels as of 8-4-87
White/McClamrock Properties
Boring
Boring
Ground Water
Ground
Ground Water
Number
Depth
Depth (Ground)
Elevation
Elevation
B-1
25.5
23.45
184.0
160.55
B-2
44.4
*
175.5
B-3
41.01
39.88
193.0
153.12
B-4
13.5
*
152.4
B-5
49.0
Dry @ 49.0
176.8
127.8
B-6
21.0
18.95
192.6
173.65
B-7
11.5
6.26
92.4
86.14
B-8
11.5
7.21
100.8
93.59
B-9
43.5
31.97
166.4
134.43
B-10
23.5
Dry @ 23.5
136.5
113.0
B-11
25.0
16.05
115.4
99.35
B-12
33.5
31.98
150.4
118.42
B-13
28.5
27.73
166.3
138.57
B-14
13.5
9.2
110.3
101.1
B-15
15.0
9.76
101.3
91.54
B-16
13.5
5.25
116.7
111.45
MW-1
52.0
6.90
117.0
110.10
MW-2
96.5
50.67
176.9
126.23
M W-3
120.0
25.78
184.1
158.32
*Denotes wells that were destroyed by the farming operation before water levels could be
measured.

TABLE 3
Estimate for Costs for Liner, Leachate Collection System
and Cover for Municipal Landfill
White Property
Rowan County, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job #200-87-106
LINER
Laver Item
Smooth, Compacted 12" Base
Synthetic 30 mil PVC Liner
Geotextile Fabric
Leachate Collection System, 12" Thick
Geotextile Fabric
Coarse Gravel Layer, 12" Thick
Costs Acre
Low High
7,750
13,550
13,070
18,300
5,800
18,580
27,600
31,300
5,800
18,580
15,490
16,940
75,510
117,250
COVER
Costs Acre
Laver Item
Low
Hiqh
Geotextile Fabric
5,800
9,300
Gas Drainage Layer w/Piping
25,090
28,460
Geotextile Fabric
5,800
9,300
Synthetic 30 mil PVC Liner
13,070
18,300
Geotextile Fabric
5,800
9,300
Drainage Layer, 12'' Thick
21,350
23,970
Geotextile Fabric
5,800
9,300
Topsoil
1,130
1,360
83,840 109,290

FIGURES

SITE LOCATION �,!AP
PROJECT
Rowan County Landfill
Rowan County, N.C.
AQUATHRA,
INCORPORATED
SCALE; As Shown
JOB NO; 200-a7-105
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA FIGURE NO: 1

PROJECT
PROPOSED ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
AQUATERRA,
INC° I JOB NUMBER:1200-87-106
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NUMBER: 2
ed Frond

PROJECT
PROPOSED ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DEEP GROUND WATER SURFACE CONTOUR MAP
AS OF 6-1-88
AQUATERRA� INC,
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
J013 NUMBER: 200-87-106
SCALE: 1" = 10OW
FIGURE NUMBER: 3

24" Topsoil Layer
Geotextile Fabric
r— 12" Drainage Layer
Geotextile Fabric Overlain by 30 mil PVC Liner. Overlain by Geotextile
Fabric
Gas Drainage Layer (12") with Pining
Compacted Refuse and Daily Cover Soil
Geotextile Fabric
Leachate Collection Layer with Piping
Geotextile Fabric
LANDFILL CAP
12" Coarse Gravel Layer / / r30 mil PVC Liner Overlain by Geotextile Fabric
Smooth,Compacted 12" Base
LANDFILL LINER
Natural Foundation Soils
Conceptual Design for Landfill Basal Liner/Leachate Collection and Cap System
PROJECT INC,OB NUMBER: 200-87-106
owan ounty White Property AQUATERRA, I N SCALE: Not To Scale
Proposed Landfill
RALEIGH, NORTH C ARO LINA I FIGURE NUMBER: 4

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A
AUGUST 7, 1987 CORRESPONDENCE

Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White and McClamrock Properties
Rowan County, North Carolina
Prepared for
Rowan County Board of Commissioners
Salisbury, North Carolina
Prepared by
S&ME Environmental Services
Cary, North Carolina
August 1987

ti
j
(A partnership in North Carolina)
Formerly, Soil & Material Engineers, Inc.
August 7, 1987
Rowan County Courthouse
212 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina
ATTENTION: Mr. Tim Russell
REFERENCE: Proposed Sanitary Landfill Site Evaluation
White and McClamrock Properties
Rowan County, North Carolina
S&ME Job #4112-87-145
Dear Mr. Russell:
Based upon your authorization, S&ME, Inc. has completed a limited sanitary
landfill site evaluation for a proposed 465 acre tract located off State
Road #1702 near Woodleaf, North Carolina as shown in Figure 1. The
purpose of this feasiblity study is to describe the soil, rock, ground
water, topography and geologic conditions encountered by the test borings,
shallow and deep monitoring wells, limited geophysical studies and site
reconnaissance completed in accordance with segments of the North Carolina
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch (SHWMB) regulations for Solid
Waste Management 10 NCAC 10G and several conversations with Mr. Mike
Babuoin (SHWMB). Conclusions will also be provided detailing the
suitability and limitations of this site for landfilling purposes based on
the preliminary data. The purpose of this feasiblity study is to develop
soil, ground water and other physical data for the property, to be used
S&ME, Inc.
1903 N. Harrison Avenue, P.O. Box 1.:108
Cory, NC 27511 [phone]

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 3
for evaluation by the County as whether to proceed with a complete site
approval application. It is our understanding that this landfill is to be
used for the disposal of residential and non -toxic industrial wastes. No
hazardous wastes will be disposed at this site.
At this time, no boundary site plan or topographic map for this site is
available to us. The mapping used in this preliminary phase was a
provided by Mr. Tim Russell representing Rowan County with property
boundaries sketched. The elevations and locations of the boreholes on the
site and their relationships to an existing site feature have been
surveyed for horizontal and vertical control. Also no laboratory work was
proposed in this initial phase of the investigation, but if the proposed
tract is to be permitted, laboratory testing according to the North
Carolina SHWMB Rules (Section .0504) must be performed.
1.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
1.1 Regional Geology
The proposed site lies in the Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina. According to geologic mapping prepared by the North Carolina
•

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 4
Geologic Survey, the site lies in a suite of rocks known as the Charlotte
Belt. It is composed mostly of plutonic or igneous rocks that form a
complex mixture of granites, diorites and gabbros that have intruded
medium to high grade metamorphic rocks, mostly felsic and mafic gneisses
and schists that apparently originated from sedimentary and volcanic
rocks.
Topographically, the site is characterized by two perennial streams, one
bounding the site to the west, a perennial stream bounding the site to
east, and Second Creek flowing from southwest to northeast at the southern
portion. The site is dominated by a large hill at approximately 760 feet
above mean sea level at the north end of the property with ridges that
slope moderately to the south and southeast to an elevation below 640 feet
above mean sea level at Second Creek.
1.2 Field EXDloration
Sixteen soil test boring locations were selected and staked in the field
by a representative of S&ME using visual estimation, site features, and
topography in relation to the U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute Cooleemee quadrangle
map. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the attached
borehole location map as shown in Figure 2. Elevations of the boreholes
were surveyed for horizontal and vertical control. _

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 5
Initially, the field exploration consisted of drilling sixteen soil test
borings to a depth of five feet below.the water table. All test borings
were drilled by a CME-45 drill rig mounted on an all -terrain carrier.
Representative soil samples were obtained at approximate 5 foot intervals
by means of the split -barrel sampling procedure (ASTM D-1586). All soil
samples collected were classified by the Unified Soil Classification
System (ASTM D-2487-85) and recorded on the Test Boring Records, shown in
Attachment A.
At the completion of drilling each borehole, a temporary piezometer was
constructed with observations made for water accumulating in the
borehole. A representative of S&ME also measured water levels in the
boreholes approximately one week later. Utilizing the stabilized ground
water levels shown in Table 1, an approximate shallow potentiometric map
is shown in Figure 3.
Subsequent to the piezometer installations, three deep monitoring wells
were installed to monitor the deep ground water flow direction in the
bedrock aquifer and to assess the relative vertical gradient compared to
the shallow ground water system. These three monitoring wells were paired
with three of the piezometers as shown in Figure 2. The borings for the
wells were performed by an air -percussion drilling rig. Soil samples were
collected from the cuttings and logged in the field by a geologist
according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM 2487-85) and
recorded on the Test Boring Records contained in Attachment A.

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 6
At the completion of each boring a permanent ground water monitoring well
was- installed as shown on the Monitoring Well Schematics contained in
Attachment A. The wells were surveyed for horizontal and vertical control
which was referenced to a facility benchmark. Upon stabilization of the
ground water levels, approximately one week after installation, the ground
water levels were measured and recorded as shown in Table 1. Utilizing
this data an approximate deep ground water potentiometric map is shown in
Figure 4.
1.3
Geophysical
Investigation
On
June 17
and July 8,
1987 a two man field crew conducted the seismic
investigation at the White and McClamrock tracts. Rock surfaces were
investigated utilizing four seismic refraction lines at the White tract
and four seismic refraction lines at the McClamrock tract. The lines
varied in length from 100 to 120 feet and were oriented in various
directions as shown in Figure 5. Data was collected utilizing a Nimbus
ES-1250 twelve channel signal enhancement seismograph which measures the
travel time of a compressional wave moving through the ground. The wave
is generated by striking an aluminum plate with a hammer containing a
switch which triggers a timing device upon impact, and is received by a
geophone mounted at fixed locations. Travel times are converted to
velocities which vary according to the density of the material through
which the wave passes.

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 7
The data collected in a seismic refraction study is converted to seismic
velocities through subsurface materials which may then be compared with
known seismic velocities through similar materials. This comparison may
reveal data about the rock surface such as lateral and vertical
homogeneity, faulting, jointing, dikes, and other discontinuities in the
rock surface. Although different subsurface features may produce
identical seismic properties and yield several "correct" interpretations,
_4 our interpretations of the data collected is consistent with regional
geologic features, geologic conditions observed in the field, soil test
borings, and our past experiences with seismic refraction studies under
similar conditions. The data collected in the field was converted to
seismic velocities utilizing the three media case method described by M.B.
Dobrin in Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, 1976; McGraw-Hill,
Inc., pp. 258-299.
As shown in Figure 5, seismic velocities ranged from 7,100 ft/sec to
17,000 ft/sec in the bedrock. Although these velocities vary greatly,
most were on the order of 10,000 ft/sec or greater, which is slightly
below what may be anticipated for similar rock bodies under ideal
conditions. According to the boring logs for the monitoring wells, the
bedrock cuttings resemble those of a granitic body. A relatively sound
granite has been experimentally shown to produce seismic velocities of
' 17,000 to 19,000 ft/sec (Dobrin, 1976).
In general, seismic velocities were greatest in areas of relatively
shallow soil conditions (Lines D, E, F and H). On two se is lines,,B

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 8
and C, the rock surface was not probed due to its depth being greater than
the overall depth of the seismic investigation. Although no rock outcrops
were observed at the site to corroborate with the study, the seismic
velocities calculated from the field data collected do not indicate
extensive fracturing or jointing in the bedrock.
2.0 EVALUATION OF SITE
To consider siting of a sanitary landfill, several technical factors must
be considered such as ground water levels, excavation, availability and
suitability of cover soils, permeability of landfill base, and
environmental protection and monitoring. We will discuss each of these
factors so that an initial determination can be made whether to pursue
this site.
2.1 Ground Water
Ground water was observed in twelve piezometers ranging between 5-40 feet
below ground surface. Two piezometers could not be accessed due to crop
growth. Assuming that the ground water is just below the bottom elevation
of the remaining piezometers ground water levels range between 23 to 49
feet below land surface. Ground water levels may be expected to fluctuate
due to rainfall, temperature, season surface drainage, infiltration, and
other factors. The piezometers exhibiting shallow water levels, B-7, B-8,
B-14, B-15 and B-16, all lie in the relatively flat area wit 'n about 120
feet of Second Creek as shown in Figure 2.`'
s �k

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 9
The North Carolina Department of Human Resources requires that the bottom
of the landfill be a minimum of four feet above the real or estimated
ground water level. Assuming no excavation is required in the low-lying
area along Second Creek, the maximum depth of excavation for this site
will be between 12 and 45 feet. Based on current solid waste and ground
water regulations,, these temporary monitoring wells must be grouted closed
prior to construction of the landfill or within 180 days from the date of
their installation. It is our understanding that this will be performed
by the County.
The horizontal hydraulic gradient can be determined from the shallow
potentiometric surface map shown in Figure 3. The average hydraulic
gradient of the shallow ground water surface is 0.07 ft/ft in a
southeasterly direction.
The horizontal hydraulic gradient for deep flow can be determined from the
deep potentionmetric map shown in Figure 4. The average hydraulic
gradient of the deep flow is 0.03 ft/ft in a southeasterly direction.
The vertical hydraulic gradient can be developed from the three well
nests. The well nests consist of wells installed at the top of the
saturated' zone in the soil (B-1, B-5, B-16) and in the bedrock (MW-1,
MW-2, MW-3). The ground water elevation differences at these well nests
range from +1.35 feet (B-16 to MW-1) to +2.23 feet (B-1 to MW-3)
exhibiting an overall downward trend from the shallow to the deep aquifer
system. Rr

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 10
2.2 Excavation
One of the major considerations regarding the use of a landfill site is
whether difficult excavation will be encountered due to weathered or sound
i
rock. Although some rock pinnacales or rock lenses may be encountered at
this site as evidenced by the rock float boulders, the test borings
indicate that the general depth of residual soil ranges between 9 to 42
feet below land surface. Ground water depths will apparently be the
limiting criteria in determining typical depths of excavation.
2.3 Cover Soils
Generally, the soils at the site are residual fine sandy silts with
isolated fine sand or clay lenses. The silty soils may be suitable for
daily cover, but based upon the boring logs shown in Attachment A there
does not appear to be sufficient soil at the site that would be suitable
for final cover. It must be noted that these observations are visual and
must be confirmed by laboratory analysis to conform with regulations for a
solid waste disposal site approval.
2.4 Bedrock Quality
Although no bedrock was observed in outcrops or sampled during the borings
for the monitoring wells, the results of the seismic refraction study show
seismic velocities slightly below what may be expected for relatively
Jy ? t
M E �s'� at
a %
sound granite.���

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 11
In general, rocks in the Piedmont exhibit some degree of fracturing and/or
jointing; however, the seismic velocities calculated for the bedrock at
the site do not indicate extensive fracturing or jointing in the bedrock.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, the White and McClamrock property has numerous physical
conditions that appear suitable for use as a sanitary landfill. First,
the overall tract is 465 acres is quite large which is ideal for providing
sufficient buffering around the perimeter of a possible landfill site.
This is augumented by one perennial stream (Second Creek) which bounds the
hydraulic downgradient portion of the site. Only two active and one
abandoned dwellings were noticed within an approximate 0.5 mile radius of
the property which is relatively low compared to the overall population of
Rowan County.
The subsurface soils appear suitable for use as daily cover although other
considerations may have to be made concerning the landfill base and final
cover soils. This condition is likely to be rather consistent throughout
Rowan County. Depth of the soils varies across the site. However, in
comparison' to the ground water depths and landfilling regulations
providing a minimum buffer of 4 feet above the seasonal high ground water
table, it appears that ground water will be the limiting factor for depths
of excavation.

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 12
Ground water flow direction calculated in the shallow water table and the
deep water table were in a southeasterly direction and the hydraulic
gradient for the shallow water table was .07 ft/ft while the bedrock
aquifer had a hydraulic gradient of 0.03 ft/ft. The vertical gradient
exhibited a downward trend from the shallow water table to the bedrock
T aquifer that varied from +1.35 feet (B-16 to MW-1) to +2.23 feet (B-1 to
MW-3). This can be of concern when consideration of the vertical
migration of contaminants from a proposed landfill. At a minimum,
suitable measures must be taken to adequately monitor this aquifer along
with the shallow water table to detect possible contamination migration if
this site is considered seriously by the Rowan County Board of
Commissioners.
Utilizing the deep boring logs for the monitoring wells, the bedrock
cuttings resemble those of a granitic body. The geophysical seismic
survey results collected on both properties do not indicate extensive
i
fracturing or jointing in the bedrock although this could not be
corroborated by any observed. outcrops. This is considered a generally
good condition at the site since extensive fracturing or jointing can
provide a significant pathway for contaminant migration.
Based upon the results of these initial field investigations, we would
suggest that the site be considered seriously as a potential sanitary
landfill. Many of the deficiencies mentioned in the previous suctions are
conditions found generally in Rowan County and additional site evaluations
may not prove to be cost effective especially in conside -ion f e

Mr. Russell
August 7, 1987
Page 13
extensive study completed to locate this site. At this time, we would
recommend that Rowan County proceed with completion of the North Carolina
Solid Waste Management Rules application requirements for sanitary
landfills (10 NCAC 10G .0504(1)) and the June 5, 1987 Memorandum of
Agreement between the North Carolina Solid and Hazardous Waste Management,
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service to you. If you have
any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
PLR/CEJ/jg
Sincerely,
S&ME ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
C. Earl Jones, Jr.
Geologist II
Phillip L. Rahn j?C'.
Senior Hydrogeologist/Project Manager
U,.

Table 1
Ground
Water Surface
Elevations
White
and McClamrock
Properties
(As of 8-4-87)
Boring
Ground
TOC
'G.W.
Number
Elevation*
Elevation*
Depth (TOC)
B-1
184.0
187.2
26.65
B-2
175.5
181.2
---
B-3
193.0
195.7
42.58
B-4
152.4
158.2
---
B-5
176.8
178.3
Dry
B-6
192.6
196.1
22.45
B-7
92.4
95.1
8.96
B-8
100.8
104.0
10.41
B-9
166.4
171.3
36.87
B-10
136.5
140.6
Dry
B-11
115.4
120.3
20.95
B-12
150.4
154.5
36.08
B-13
166.3
170.5
31.93
B-14
110.3
114.0
12.90
B-15
101.3
106.0
14.46
B-16
116.7
120.1
8.65
MW-1
117.0
120.0
9.90
MW-2
176.9
180.0
53.77
MW-3
184.1
187.3
28.98
*Note:
All elevations are
referenced from a facility benchmark.
Ground water levels
represent stabilized conditions.
G.W.
Elevation*
160.55
153.12
173.65
86.14
93.59
134.43
99.35
118.42
138.57
101.1
91.54
111.45
110.10
126.23
158.32

PROJECT SOIL& MATERIALENGINEERS,INC. SCALE: AS SHOWN
ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA JOB NO. 4112-87-145
ROWAN COUNTY, NC FIG. NO . 1
OVNCAN�ARNELL, INC., RALEWH 386 919-635^1671

S.R. 1947
B-5
B-1 0,L MW-3 11 • B-3
4 • White Property
,B-
B-2 ' B-6
•
N , i B-8
i B-13
l 0 12 • B-15
B-9 B-16 MW-1 •
• McClamrock)Property
J' / B-14
� fo B-11 el
��e
• senor
B-10
BORING AND MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
PROJECT
Rowan County Landfill
Rowan County, N.C.
SOIL 8 MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
RALE IGH , NORTH CAROLINA
B-7
•
LEGEND
• Shallow Piezometer
A Deep Monitoring Well
-- Dirt Road
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
J 0 B NO' 4112-87-145
FIG N0: 2
!Ru-A 1

N!
SHALLOW POTENTIONMETRIC MAP
as of 3-4-87
PROJECT
Rowan County Landfill
Rowan County, N.C.
S
S.R. 1947
TB-1 • B-3
-00-40
6�
150
White Property
0 0
XB-6111
� R-13
•B-12
B-16•
B: cCla ock)Propert
O �
��o I
ti B-11
0
0
•B-8 •
B-7
•
B-15
Gi
� comma
Se
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
RA L E I G H, NORTH CAROLI NA
LEGEND
• PIEZOMETER
-- Dirt Road
SCALE'. 1" a 1000'
JOB N0: 4112-87-145
F IG NO: 3

DEEP POTENTIOMETRIC MAP
as of 8-4-87
PROJECT
Rowan County Landfill
Rowan County, N.C.
MW-2
S.- 1947 A
MW-3
1<1 i P/perty
ti O
�Q�
��O o
McClamrock) Prop r y 1
1
eNr
a�
oo�`
Se
A Deep Monitoring Well
^ Dirt Road
NOTE: All elevations are referenced to a facility benchmark
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC. SCALE: 1" = 1000,
RA L E I G H, NORTH CAROLI NA J 0 B N0: 4112-87-145
FIG NO: 4

S.R. 1947 C
IA
N
SEISMIC LINE LOCATION MAP
rt�UJECT
Rowan County Landfill
Rowan County, N.C.
D
E
White Property
B F• -
GI.
McClamrock Property H
•-� Sec
o
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC,
RA L E I G H, NORTH CAROLI NA
SOIL
PWR
ROCK
LINE
VELOCITY VELOCITY
VELOCITY
A
1300
ft/s 2400 ft/s
7100 ft/s
B
1500
1900
-
C
2000
3300
-
D
1700
2500
13,000
E
1400
2100
17,000
F
1420
2670
10,000
G
1200
2000
8,500
H
1000
3400
10,000
Seismic
Line
Length is Not
To Scale
SCALE, 1" - 1000,
J 0 B NO' 4112-87-145
FIG N0; _ 5

ATTACHMENT A
TEST BORING RECORDS

ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
DEPTH DESCRIPTION
FT.
0.0
7.
22.0
75.5
• 10 20 30 • • .• :• 100
Very Stiff Red -Tan to Orange Slightly
Clayey SILT (ATI)
21
1
Stiff Red -Tan -to Orange with Black
Staining Slightly Clayey SILT (11H)
10
03
Medium Stiff Red -Tan to Orange with
Black Staining SILT with Partially
?leathered Rock (P!L)
Very Stiff Tan to Orange with Black
Staining SILT with Soft Weathered Rock
Boring Terminated @ 25.5
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
'"" PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE WATER TABLE-24HR.
H% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-1
DATE DRILLED 2 June ' 87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
4.45

DESCRIPTION
ELEV. 4D PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT.
U.0
6.0
'2.0
1i.0
- .0
`' r, . 0
.0 -
'-.0
Very Stiff Tan to Red Fine Sandy SILT
(m)
•
27
Very Stiff Black Brown, Tan, Red
Micaceous SILT (('LH)
18
Stiff, Black, Brown, Tan Micaceous
SILT
1.1
•
Stiff, Black, Brown, Tan Fine to
Medium Sandy Micaceous SILT (ML)
•
8
Stiff, Black, Brown, Tan Micaceous
SILT (c_-L)
•12
Very Stiff to Hard, Tan, Gray to off
White Micaceous SILT with Soft
Weathered Rock (ML)
15
•
Hard, Brown, Tan, Gray, White Fine to
Medium Sandy Micaceous SITL (t�L)
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
Cn PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
' FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
15� % ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-2
DATE DRILLED 2 June 187
JOB NO. 411?-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
3.31

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
F T.
ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
f2
14.4
lard Gray to White Fine to Medium
Sandy SILT and Soft Waethered Rock (11L)
Boring Terminated @ 44.41
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
woUNDISTURBED SAMPLE WATER TABLE-24HR.
150I% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
100+
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO.
DATE DRILLED
JOB NO.
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DEPTH
FT.
9:D
6.0
2.5
3.0
23.0
24.5
25.5
32.5
37.0
41.0
DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
17
Very Stiff Red Slightly Micaceous
Clayey SILT (MH)
11
Stiff Balck, Orange, Brown Slightly
Micaceous SILT (III.)
2
Stiff Black, Brown, Orange Micaceous
SILT (ML)
13
Stiff Orange Slightly Micaceous
Slightly Medium Sandy SILT (ML)
13
Stiff Pink, Tan Micaceous Very Fine
Sand SILT (1 L)
Stiff Black, Broom, Orange Slightly
Miaceous Very Fine Sandy SILT (PR,)
Stiff i?hite, Gray Slightly Nicaceous
Fine Sandy SILT (ML)
170
Medium Dense White, Gray Slightly
Micaceous Slightly Fine SAND (SM)
Stiff Black, Gray, White Orange Fine
to Medium Sandy SILT (I%
Boring Terminated F, 41_.01
013
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
150�% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. R
DATE DRILLED 2 June ' 87
JOB N0, Z;11.2-87-1Z,5
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
0.4'

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
• 10 20 30 • • .• :• •-
DEPTH
FT
0.0
7 . 5
3.5
Stiff Red, Brown iiicaceous SILT with
Trace Medium Sand (ML)
c�
• 5
Medium Stiff White, Tan, Brown
Micaceous Medium Sandy SILT (r1L)
Boring Terminated @ 13.5
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
TEST BORING RECORD
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113co BORING N0. B-4
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER, DATE DRILLED 3 .June `87
' FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
1501% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE -I HR. SOIL &MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
4 LOSS OF DRILLING WATER

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
F T.
0.0
13.0
17.5
33.5
37.5
Stiff Red, Brown Micaceous Slightly
Medium Sandy SILT (ML)
12
13
•
1C
Very Stiff Tan, Brown Micaceous Fine
to Tiediun Sandy SILT with Weathered
Rock Fragments (ML)
19
Very Stiff Tan, Gray, White Micaceous
Medium Sandy SILT (ML)
17•
17 •
Very Dense Brown, Tan, �%Thite Silty Fine
o Cogrse SAND with Weathered Rock
I
8
Very Dense Gray, White Silty Fine to
parse SAND with Weathered Rock (SM)
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
NoUNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
15�0% ROCK CORE RECOVERY - WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
,100%
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-5
DATE DRILLED3 June 187
JOB NO. 411.2-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION- BLOWS PER FT
• • • •• 5
or-1111L• ••
DEPTH
FT
40.0
43.J
'+9.0
Very Dense [White Gray, Silty
Nicaceous Fine to Coarse SAND with
Weathered ROCK (S")
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE = WATER TABLE-24HR.
J50I%ROCK CORE RECOVERY -- WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
1100
46.0
100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-S
DATE DRILLED June 3, 1987
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
DEPTH
F T.
0.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
19.0
20.0
Medium Dense Red -Brown Silty Fine SAND
(SM)
s
16
•
I
Medium Dense Red -Brown Slightly
Micaceous Silty Fine SAND (SN)
j
Dense Tan Silty I'ed SAND w/P.ock Fra men
Very Dense Gray Slightly Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND with Rock Fragments (SM)
5
Soft [leathered Rock Ledges
oring, Terminated 0 21..0'
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB, HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE WATER TABLE-24HR.
150�0/o ROCK CORE RECOVERY -- WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
100%
100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-6
DATE DRILLED3 June ' 87
JOB NO. 4112-87-1.45
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
8.0

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION- BLCWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
F T.
8:8
8
9.0
37
Hard, Black, Brown, Gray Silty CLAY
(GL)
41
Dense Gray, Tan Silty Fine SAND
Boring Terminated @ 11.5'
Topsoil
�Light Tan, Gray Silty Medium to
Coarse SAND (SM)
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
woUNDISTURBED SAMPLE
15�% ROCK CORE RECOVERY
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
WATER TABLE-24HR.
WATER TABLE -I HR.
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-7
DATE DRILLED3 June '87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
go

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
DEPTH
FT
0.0
6.0
11.5
Loose Orange, Brown Silty Fine to
Medium SAND (SUM)
Stiff Orange, Brown Medium Sandy
Clayey SILT(ML)
Boring Terminated @ 11.5
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
150,%ROCK CORE RECOVERY --- WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO, B-8
DATE DRILLED 3 June ' 87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
9.51

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT.
0.0
0.5
33.0
38.0
ORANGE - RED MICACEOUS CLAYEY SILT
(rrL )
CK
22
1
12
ORANGE - TAN AND BLACK MICACEOUS
VERY FINE SANDY SILT (ML)
11
1
37
GRAY - BROWN & TAN SLIGHTLY
MICACEOUS VERY FINE SANDY SILT (11L)
BLACK, WHITE, BROWN & GRAY MICACEOUS
PINE SANDY SILT - PARTIALLY WEATHER R
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
" PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE WATER TABLE-24HR.
101 % ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
I5Q
3
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B - 9
DATE DRILLED 7/15/87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
FT.
ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
+ 3 . 5
BORING TERMINATED @ 43.5' ON 7-15-87
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE - WATER TABLE-24HR.
1501% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
50
1
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-9 (CONT . )
DATE DRILLED
JOB NO.
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
F T.
0.0
14 .'
1111.w1
'3.5
RED - TAN FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY SILT
(tlL) WITH QUARTZ FRAGMENTS
19
8
Iv -RITE - TAN AND BROWN MEDIUM SANDY
SILT t-IITH QUARTZ FRAGMENTS - PARTIALL
WEATHER ROCK
WHITE - TAN AND BLlCK.SILTY FINE TO
COARSE SAND WITH ROCI: FRAGMENTS -
PARiIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
AUGER REFUSAL @ 23.5' ON 7/14/87
r
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24 HR.
l`d% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
50
4.5
50
1
,50
0
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B -10
DATE DRILLED 7/14/87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DEPTH
FT
0.0
7 . 5
_,. 12.0
18.0
25.0
DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
BROIIN
(SM)
- TAN & WHITE SILTY
FINE SAND
27
ORANGE - BROWN & WHITE SLIGHTY SILTY
CLAYEY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (SM)
19
21
BROWN - TAN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
SAND (SM)
3
WHITE, BROWN, TAN & BLACK MICACEOUS
SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (SM) WITH
QUARTZ FRAGMENTS
31
BORING TERMINATED @ 25.0' ON 7/16/37
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
z PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE IA IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE - WATER TABLE-24HR.
150I% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. 5 - 11
DATE DRILLED7/16/87
JOB NO. '[phone]
SOIL& MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT
0.0
8.5
23.0
27._`
33.`
REDDISH - ORANGE & TAN SILT (ML)
22
9
WHITE - TAN SILTY FINE TO COARSE
SAND (SM) WITH QUARTZ FRAGMENTS
7
35
ORANGE - TAN SANDY SILT (1,L)
WHITE - TAN AND BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM
SANDY SILT (ML)
2
BORING TERMINATED @ 33.5 ON 7/15/87
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
z PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
woUNDISTURBED SAMPLE ± WATER TABLE-24HR.
)50{% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-]HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
,50
5.5
,50
1.5
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. R - 12
DATE DRILLED 1/15/87
JOB NO. 4112-87-I [ ,
SOIL. & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT.
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT.
0.0
3.0
11.5
28.5
RED - BROWN CLAYEY SILT (ML)
4119
ORANGE - BROWN FINE TO COARSE SANDY
SILT (NL) WITH QUARTZ FRAGMENTS
WHITE - GRAY & TAN SILTY FINE TO
COARSE SAND (SM) WITH QUARTZ FRAGMENT.
2+
AUGER REFUSAL @ 28.5 ON 7/16/87
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
woUNDISTURBED SAMPLE - WATER TABLE-24HR.
]50I% ROCK CORE RECOVERY --- WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
50
3
50
0.5
50
3
50
i
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B - 13
DATE DRILLED 7/16/87
JOB NO4112-87-145
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
F T.
0.0
9.0
13.5
ORANGE - BRO[JN CLAYEY SILT (ML)
2
4
WHITE - TAN - BLACK SILTY FINE TO
COARSE SAND (SM) WITH QUARTZ FRAGMENT
BORING TERMINATED @ 13.5' ON 7-16-87
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
NoUNDISTURBED SAMPLE - WATER TABLE-24HR.
150I% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
,50
0
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. R -14
DATE DRILLED 7 /16/87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
F T.
ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 BO 100
0.0
6.5
15.0
REDDISH FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY SILT (ML
9
6
TAN TO BLACK ORGANIC FINE SANDY CLAYS
SILT (OL)
4
BORING TERMINATED @ 15.0 ON 7/16/87
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
woUNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
150I% ROCK CORE RECOVERY � WATER TABLE -I HR.
e LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. R -1 S
DATE DRILLED 7/16/87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 BO 100
DEPTH
FT.
0.0
u. 5
13.5
RED - BROWN SANDY SILT (P1L)
WITH QUARTZ FRAGMENTS
16
I
GRAY - BROWN AND WHITE MICACEOUS
SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND (Sll)
WITH ROCK FRAGMENTS
BORING TERMINATED @ 13.5' ON 7-15-87
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE WATER TABLE-24HR.
150 % ROCK CORE RECOVERY - - WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
50
3
50
1
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B - 16
DATE DRILLED 7/15/87
JOB NO.4112-87-145
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION
ELEV. 0 PENETRATION —BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT.
0.0
6.5
15.0
52.0
Very Stiff Red -Brown Medium Sandy SILT
( IL)
16
Very Dense Gray -Brown Slightly
Micaceous Silty Fine to Coarse SAND
(SM) with Partially Weathered Rock
White -Gray Biotite GRANITE
Boring Terminated at 52.0'
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
NoUNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
150I% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-IHR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
1100+
100+
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. raT-1
DATE DRILLED 7-29-87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0 PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT
0.0
13.0
33.5
60.0
80.0
Stiff Red -Brown Micaceous Slightly
Medium Sandy SILT(ML)
12
13
16
19
Very Stiff Tan -Gray Micaceous Mediurl
Sandy SILT(11L) with Rock Fragments
17
1741
Very Dense Tan to Gray -White Micaceous
Silty Fine to Coarse SAND(SM) with
Partiallv Weathered Rock
1
White -Gray Biotite GRANITE
,100+
100+
�100+
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113 BORING NO. MW-2
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER. DATE DRILLED 7-29-87
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, I.D. SAMPLER I FT JOB N0. 4112-87-145
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
150{% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-1 HR. SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
44 LOSS OF DRILLING WATER

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
DEPTH
FT
0.0
White -Gray Biotite GRANITE
Boring Termianted at 96.5'
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE = WATER TABLE-24HR.
150I%ROCK CORE RECOVERY -- WATER TABLE-[HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. MW-2(cont'd)
DATE DRILLED 7-29-87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT.
0.0
30.0
30.0
Stiff to Very Stiff Red -Tan to Orange
Clayey SILT(NJi) with Black Inclusions
and Partially Weathered Rock Lenses
4
21
8
10
6
Tan -Gray Fine to Medium Sandy SILT(ML)
with Partially Weathered Rock Lenses
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN, I.D. SAMPLER I FT
UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
1501% ROCK CORE RECOVERY
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
WATER TABLE-24HR.
WATER TABLE -I HR.
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. MW-3
DATE DRILLED 7-29-87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

DESCRIPTION ELEV. PENETRATION -BLOWS PER FT
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
DEPTH
FT.
80.0
120.0
blhite-Gray Biotite GRANITE
i
I
I11
Borin Terminated at 120.0' in GRANITE
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER.
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1A IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
)5d% ROCK CORE RECOVERY - WATER TABLE -I HR.
LOSS OF DRILLING WATER
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING N0. ',94-3 (cont' d)
DATE DRILLED 7-29-87
JOB NO. 4112-87-145
SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.

Well Number: MW-1
Date Started: 7-28-87
Date Finished:_ 7-29-87
Geologist/Engineer: W.P. Sugg
Drilling Method:_ Air Rotary
Drilling Fluids:
Static Water Level: Date:
Obaerved by:
Remarks:
WAftWd
ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED FROM GROUND SURFACE
Lockable Cap --_
O.D. of Borehole:
6.0"
O.D. of Caning:
Length of Screen:
0'
Protective Casing
Screen Opening Size:
Pipe Stickup Distance:
0.0
Elevation of
Ground Surface:
(If Known)
#1 Portland Grout
(Type)
%.0" PVC Casing
•J
(Size & Type)
—.Depth to Top of Bentonite -
37.0'
Bentonite
i
•K
Depth to Top of Gravel:
42_n
x:
�-
`►
.__Depth to Top of Screen:
47.0'
t
'(
A;
Sand/Gravel Pack
l�
2.0" PVC Screen
=R
(Size 6 Type)
•
' 4.
y .s
x E
_._.Depth to Bottom of Screen:
52.0'
—Total Depth: 52.0'
-
PROJECT SOIL 6 MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC. SCALE: N.T.S.
Rowan County Landfill
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA J08 NO' 4112-87-145
Rowan County, NC FIG. NO
wrcwM-►wwwatt. rc_ wu`w asp •�ss-..n

Well Number: W-2
Date Started: __7-28-87
Date Finished: 7-29-87
Geologist/Engineer:
Remarks:
Drilling Method: Air Rotary
Drilling Fluids:
Static Water Level: Date:
Observed by:
ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED FROM GROUND SURFACE
Lockable Cap =—.
O.D. of Borehole:
6.0"
O.D. of Casing:
2.375
Length of Screen:
5.0'
Protective Casing
Screen Opening Size: 0.010
Pipe Stickup Distance:
0.0
Elevation of
Ground Surface:
(If Known)
#L Pnrtland Grout
(Type)
2.0" PVC Casing
i;•
(Size & Type)
`
---Depth to Top of Bentonite: 81.0'
i
X
Bentonite
---Depth to Top of Gravel:
85.0'
Y:
•K
=�+.
`►
__Depth to Top of Screen:
91.5'
A:
Sand/Gravel Pack
•l�
x
2.0" PVC Screen
-�
(Size & Type)
4.
PPO.I Fr-r
Rowan County Landfill
Rowan County, NC
___Depth to Bottom of Screen: 96.5'
—Total Depth: 96.5' -
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA .
SCALE'. N.T.S.
J 0 B NO. 4112-87-145
FIG. NO'
i
wrcwr-►�ww[u...c_ wwu»w aw ���+�r.

Well Number:_ JdW-3
Date Started: 7-28-87
Date Finished: 7-29-87
Geologist/Engineer: W.P. Sugg
Drilling Method:__ Air Rotary
Drilling Fluids:
Static Water Level: Date: _
Observed by:
Remarks: -
ALL DEPTHS REFERENCED FROM GROUND SURFACE
Lockable Cap --..
O.D. of Borehole: 6.0"
O.D. of Casing: 2.375
Length of Screen: 5.01
Protective Casing
Screen Opening Size:
Pipe Stickup Distance:
0.0
Elevation of
Ground Surface:
(Zf Known)
111 Portland Grout
(Type)
Casing —
(Size & Type)
—Depth to Top of Bentonite: 93.0'
i
Bentonite
i
i
�...� Depth to Top of Gravel: 97.0'
t�.
V. ---Depth to Top of Screen; 108.5'
Sand/Gravel Pack
k
2.0" PVC Screen
-t
�
(Size 6 Type)
w=
_
•.yi
x t --_Depth to Bottom of Screen:
r.
— — —Total Depth: 120.0' -
PROJECT SOIL MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC. SCALE: N.T.S.
Rowan County landfill RALEI GH , NORTH CAROLINA - JOB NO. 4112-87-145
Rowan County, NC FIG. NO

ATTACHMENT B
REVISED BORING LOG

DESCRIPTION ELEV. 0PENETRATION— BLOWS PER FT
• • • • •0 .• :• ••
DEPTH
FT.
0.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
12.0
20.0
Medium Dense Red -Brown Silty Fine SAND
(SM)
16
0
Medium Dense Red -Broom Slightly
Micaceous Silty Fine SATED (SN)
Dense Tan Silty 2"ed SAND w/Rock Fra men=s
Very Dense Gray Slightly Silt}, Fine to
Coarse SAND with Rock 'Fragments (SM)
5
Partially 1,4eathered Rock
Boring; Terminated @ 21.0'
BORING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM D-1586
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113
PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB. HAMMER,
FALLING 301N. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. I.D. SAMPLER I FT.
00 UNDISTURBED SAMPLE — WATER TABLE-24HR.
)5�% ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE-IHR.
Il I nSS np npii I INr WATFP.
100%
100
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. B-6
DATE DRILLED J
JOB NO. 4112-87- 45
*An interpretation of B-6
by Aquaterra, Inc.

ATTACHMENT B
OCTOBER 30, 1987 CORRESPONDENCE

COMPLETION OF SANITARY LANDFILL
SITE APPLICATION WORK TASKS
FOR WHITE AND McCLAMROCK PROPERTIES
October 30, 1987
Prepared For
Rowan County Board of Commissioners
Prepared By
Aquaterra, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina

October 30, 1987
Rowan County Courthouse
212 N. Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Attention: Mr. Tim Russell
Subject: Work Tasks for Completion of Sanitary Landfill Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Salisbury, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job #200-87-106
Dear Mr. Russell:
Aquaterra, Inc. is pleased to present this report for the work tasks to be completed for a site
application at the White and McClamrock properties in Rowan County, North Carolina, as shown in
Figure 1. These work tasks are intended to supplement the work tasks completed in my August 7,
1987, correspondence to Rowan County, shown in Attachment A, and work tasks completed by
Dewberry and Davis. These additional work tasks were completed according to the North Carolina
Solid Waste Management Rules for Sanitary Landfills (10NCAC 10 G.0504(1)), and additional
concerns identified in a September 25, 1987, correspondence from Gerald Horton (Dewberry &
Davis) shown in Attachment B. These work tasks comprise:
0 0.0504(1) (b)(i) and (ii) -- a map showing the area within two miles of the proposed
site's boundaries with significant ground water users identified and potential or
existing sources of ground water and surface water pollution.
0 0.0504(1)(c)(i)(B) -- particle size analysis of soils
0 0.0504(i)(E)(1),(II) and (III) -- undisturbed representative geologic sample of the
unconfined and/or confined or semi -confined hydrologic unit(s) within a depth of
50 feet that provides the following information for each major litho -graphic unit(s):
-- saturated hydraulic conductivity (in -situ)
-- volume percent water
-- porosity (this will be estimated by reference to literature)
0 0.0504(1)(F)(1),(II) and (III) -- a remolded sample of the cover soils that provides:
-- saturated hydraulic conductivity
-- total porosity
-- Atterberg Limits

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 2
0 0.0504(1)(G) -- stratigraphic cross -sections identifying hydrogeologic units
including lithology
0 0.0504(1)(g)(iv) -- a proposed ground water monitoring plan including well
location and schematics showing proposed screened interval, depth and
construction
It is Aquaterra's understanding that the remaining work tasks to be completed will be combined
with the work tasks completed in my August 7, 1987, correspondence to Rowan County and
summarized in a report evaluating geological and hydrological conditions (10NCAC 10G),
0504(c)(iv). Furthermore, it is Aquaterra's understanding that this report will be used with the work
tasks to be completed by Dewberry and Davis as a sanitary landfill site application.
1.0 Significant Ground Water Users and Potential or Existing Sources of Ground Water
and Surface Water Pollution
A map is shown in Figure 2 which depicts a two-mile radius around the proposed site's
boundaries. Based upon a literature search (Groves, 1976), review of Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development (NRCD) records and site reconnaissance, the area is
primarily used for agricultural purposes. We did not discover any significant ground water users in
the area. Domestic ground water wells are also shown within a 0.25-mile radius to comply with a
portion of 10 NCAC 10G .0504(1)(a)(iv). The site reconnaissance did not reveal any potential or
existing sources of ground water or surface water pollution, which would be indicated by any
industrial activity within the two-mile radius.
2.0 Laboratory Analysis of Cover and Basal Soils
Three soil samples of representative cover soils and one sample to represent soil near the
proposed landfill base were submitted to a soil analytical laboratory for grain size analysis and
Atterberg Limits with results shown in Attachment C. One representative sample of the cover soils
(B-6) at 0-2.0 feet was chosen to derive a remolded hydraulic conductivity at 95% Standard
Proctor. A hydraulic conductivity of 2.0 x 10-6 cm/sec or 5.7 x 10-3 feet per day and a total
porosity of 38.6% and void ratio of 0.628 was calculated as shown in Attachment D.
3.0 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Volume Percent Water and Porosity of Basal
Soils and Bedrock
In -situ hydraulic conductivity testing of the basal soils and bedrock was conducted to determine
the aquifer parameters for the hydrological units within a depth of 50 feet, excluding the partially
weathered bedrock which did not have a well screened within that unit. Borings B-4 and B-7 (basal
soils) and ground water monitoring well MW-1 (fractured bedrock) were chosen for rising head
recovery tests (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1977). Hydraulic conductivity values were calcula_ed
according to Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Calculations (Bouwer and Rice, 1976) as shown in Table
3-1 and documented in Attachment E.

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 3
Table 3-1
Slug Test Hydraulic Conductivities
White and McClamrock Properties
Rowan County, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job #200-87-106
Well Number Unit
B-4 basal soils
B-7 basal soils
MW-1 fractured bedrock
Hydraulic Conductivity
Depth cm sec ft da
11.5-13.5 3.68 x 10-5 1.043 x 10-1
9.5-11.5 5.73 x 10-5 1.626 x 10-1
47-52 8.75 x 10-7 2.482 x 10-3
The lithologic materials at the White and McCla.mrock site are residual sandy silts and silty sands
with trace amounts of clay, partially weathered bedrock and fractured bedrock. The porosity and
volume percent water values can be estimated using the description of the soils or degree of
weathering of the bedrock, from available literature (reference 1, Cohen, 1963; reference 2,
Johnson, 1967; reference 3, Mercer, Thomas and Ross, 1982). The porosity of the soil is estimated
to be in the range of 16 to 46 percent with an arithmetic mean of 32 percent, and the total porosity
of the weathered bedrock is estimated to be in the range of 34 to 57 percent with an arithmetic
mean of 45 percent and fractured weathered granite ranging from 1 to 0.001 percent. The volume
percent water would be considered to reflect these values since they are entirely within the
saturated zone.
4.0 Stratigraphic Cross -Sections, Hydrologic Units and Proposed Ground Water
Monitoring Well Network
Based upon the borings completed at the site, the following cross-section location map and cross -
sections are shown in Figures 3 through 5. At this point, we would conclude that the site is
characterized by four hydrologic units which are (a) the saturated portion of the saprolite which
consists of the weathered parent bedrock, (b) the partially weathered bedrock, (c) the fractured
bedrock, and (d) the relatively unfractured bedrock. Although the scope of these investigations
have not included wells penetrating the relatively unfractured bedrock, literature research has
suggested that these depths can range between 250 to 350 feet.
Utilizing these cross -sections and the ground water flow direction data presented in the.
correspondence in Attachment A, we would recommend that ground water monitoring for a
proposed sanitary landfill utilize the existing monitoring well MW-3 which would be incorporated
with the additional monitoring wells shown in Figure 6 and detailed in Figure 7. This would
comprise a monitoring well network that sufficiently characterizes the ground water conditions in
the three hydrologic units as it enters the property and at its hydraulically downgradient extent for
the shallow and partially weathered bedrock hydrologic units, as shown in Figure 6. Additional
data points are being emplaced for the shallow ground water flow at the downgradient extent. It is
felt that characterization of the deep relatively unfractured bedrock would not be cost-effective due
to its comparative inability for transport of possible contaminants.

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 4
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
To consider siting of a sanitary landfill, my August 7, 1987, correspondence reviewed several
technical factors including ground water levels, availability and suitability of cover soils,
permeability of the landfill base and environmental protection and monitoring. This
correspondence will serve to further detail many of the same technical factors in this evaluation in
light of the field and laboratory work tasks completed as well as address the concerns raised in the
Dewberry and Davis correspondence dated September 25, 1987.
5.1 Ground Water Users and Sources of Ground and Surface Water Pollution
Overall, the site is situated in a rural area with six existing domestic ground water users in a 0.25-
mile radius. Literature search, NRCD records review and site reconnaissance revealed no
significant ground water users (industries, etc.) or potential or existing sources of surface water
pollution.
5.2 Soil Properties at the White and McClamrock Properties
Generally the soils at the site are residual fine sandy silts, silty sands, fine to coarse sand with
isolated clay lenses. Samples from the site have been evaluated in a soils laboratory for properties
associated with the soil's hydraulic conductivity. The following properties of soil samples from
borings B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-6 are tabulated below.
Table 5-1
Properties of Soil Samples
White and McClamrock Properties
Rowan County, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job #200-87-106
Boring
Soil
Soil
Percent Passing
Liquid
Plastic
Plasticity
Number
fj2!i
Classification
Description
#200 Sieve
Limit
Limit
Index
B-1
3.5-5.0
MH
Inorganic Silt
94
80
38
42
B-2
8.5-10.0
MH
Inorganic Silt
74
58
42
16
B-3
8.5-10.0
SM
Silty Sand
43
51
40 , .
11
B-6
13.5-15.0
SM
Silty Sand
15
--
--
Non -
plastic

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 5
As is typical with the geology across Rowan County, the soil classification indicates that the more
fine-grained soils (MH) exist at the surface while the more coarse -grained soils (SM) exist at depth.
In selection of soils for basal or cover material, the most suitable soils will consist of soil types with
the highest percentage of fine-grained material. These classifications will consist of ML, CL, OL,
MH, CH, OH and PT. These types of soils will not only have suitable properties concerning
decreased hydraulic conductivities, but can also have suitability concerning attenuation of leachate
contamination.
A sample of the surficial soils from boring B-6 at a two -foot depth was remolded at 95 percent
Proctor and run for laboratory hydraulic conductivity. The sample compacted to a dry density of
110 psi at a moisture content of 15.5 percent, a porosity of 38.6 percent and a void ratio of 0.628.
The hydraulic conductivity value determined in the laboratory was 2 x 10-6 cm/sec (5.7 x 10-3
ft/day).
Recovery tests were conducted in borings B-4 and B-7 to obtain an indication of in -situ hydraulic
conductivity values for the soils. The results of the test are tabulated below:
Table 5-2
Hydraulic Conductivity
White and McClamrock Properties
Rowan County, North Carolina
Aquaterra Job #200-87-106
Screen Soil
Borinq Depth Ft Da cm sec Classification
B-4 11.5-13.5 0.10 3.68 x 10-5 ML
B-7 9.5-11.5 0.16 5.73 x 10-5 CL-SM
Based upon past hydrogeologic investigations for sanitary landfill site approval and the absence of
a definitive hydraulic conductivity deemed suitable for a sanitary cover or base soil in the North
Carolina Solid Waste Landfill Regulations (10NCAC 10G), it is considered that a compacted soil
liner or cover should have a hydraulic conductivity in the range of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec to 1 x 10-7
cm/sec or less and a minimum thickness of one foot. Since no soil liner is completely
impermeable, the design parameters, hydraulic conductivity and liner thickness need, tp be
established to assure that leachate reaching the ground water will not cause the ground water
quality to exceed maximum allowable ground water quality standards at the point of compliance
500 feet from the waste boundary.

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 6
In general, of the soils tested at the site in their natural condition or compacted to 95% Standard
Proctor, only the surficial soils (B-6 at 2.0 x 10-6 cm/sec) are possibly suitable to produce a soil
liner having a hydraulic conductivity in the range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-7 or less. The basal soils will
need some type of modification to reach a more suitable hydraulic conductivity. We would
suggest that the hydraulic conductivity of the basal soils at the site could be decreased by the
following:
o discovery of additional suitable surficial soils for the landfill base
o creation of a bentonite/soil liner
o synthetic liner
o ground water interception
5.2.1 Additional Suitable Soils
Based upon the grain size analysis at borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 with 43 to 94% passing #200 sieve
and plasticity index of 11 to 42, it is quite possible that surficial soils exist at the site which may be
more suitable for the landfill base. To determine actual volumes available would involve review of
Soil Conservation Service mapping as well as additional borings and laboratory analysis to
determine suitable volumes of soil. If onlyy enough suitable soils are found to construct liners at a
one -foot thickness in the range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec hydraulic conductivity, this could
possibly be augmented by the construction of a synthetic cap for final closure. In this way, the
least permeable material is used for the final cap while allowing for conventional landfill'ing without
leachate collection and minimization of leachate generation after closure.
5.2.2 Bentonite/Soil Liner and Cover
Fine grained soils such as the CL, ML, MH and SM soils seen at the site generally contain sufficient
fines (minus 200 mesh material) to mix with Wyoming (sodium montmorillonite clay) bentonite
which can produce a soil liner with hydraulic conductivity values between 1 x 10-8 cm/sec (2.83 x
10-5 ft/day) to 1 x 10-9 cm/sec (2.83 x 10-6 ft/day). The swelling capacity of the bentonite to plug
the soil pore spaces results in the low hydraulic conductivities.
The process consists of taking the proposed liner soil and adding bentonite by weight in
Increments of generally 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 percent by weight. Testing to determine its suitability
would involve conducting falling head hydraulic conductivity tests on the samples after remolding
to an attainable Standard Proctor. A graph of percent bentonite versus hydraulic conductivity
should be prepared for each unique soil and percent Standard Proctor compaction. Based on the
graphs and reviewing the cost difference between higher percentages of bentonite and more
compactive effort, a bentonite to soil ratio can be determined.
An estimate of the daily flow of leachate per acre can be made on the liner assuming a hydraulic
head of fluid on the liner. For this evaluation, it is assumed that comparable soil cover and liner
hydraulic conductivity compatibilities could be established that would allow a hydraulic head of
one foot or less. Based on the assumed head, the potential daily flows per acre are tabulated as
follows.

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 7
Daily Flow, Gallons
Per Acre for Liner
Hydraulic Conductivity Thicknesses of
cm sec ft/day 1 ft 2 ft
1 x 10-6 2.83 x 10-3 1,850 1,380
1 x 10-7 2.83 x 10-4 185 138
1 x 10-8 2.83 x 10-5 18.5 13.8
1 x 10-9 2.83 x 10-6 1.8 1.4
It can be seen that liner thickness in terms of seepage losses of leachate is not as important as
actual liner hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, it is better to increase the bentonite content and
compactive effort to reduce the hydraulic conductivity of a one -foot liner rather than construct a
two -foot liner. No liner should be constructed less than one foot thick because of the difficulty of
ensuring the physical integrity of the liner.
In the field, the following general steps are followed:
1. Remove all vegetation and deleterious material.
2. Use inorganic soils from which particles with diameters greater than 3/4-inch have
been screened.
3. Cut and fill the site to establish final design grade.
4. Proof roll the entire site with heavy rubber -tired rollers to locate and correct soft
areas.
5. Spread six-inch lift of soil followed by application of bentonite. Place one -foot
square cloth panels over the site prior to applying the bentonite. After the
bentonite has been applied over a blanket, it is weighted to determine if the proper
application rate was distributed by the spreader. A disc or roto-tiller set to six
inches is then used to mix the soil and bentonite. The water content of the mixture
should be adjusted to +2 percent of optimum moisture during the mixing
process.
6. A smooth drum vibrating on rubber -tired rollers is used to compact the soil to at
least 90 Standard Proctor. Sheepsfoot rollers should never be used for
compaction.
7. The compacted lift is then inspected to ensure that it has been compacted to the
required density at the specified moisture content.

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 8
8. The next six-inch lift is begun and then steps 5 through 7 continued.
9. After the desired liner thickness is achieved, field hydraulic conductivity tests are
run to ensure that the hydraulic conductivity is within acceptable limits.
10. A leachate collection system, consisting of granular drain blanket with drainpipes
and filter layer or filter fabric, is installed.
The approximate cost for the bentonite/soil mixture using site soils is $4.97 per square yard for the
liner in the bottom of the landfill and approximately $5.20 per square yard for the liner on the
slopes. The cost is based on the following items:
1. The site will be grubbed and graded to the final design slopes which may range
from 3:1 to 4:1. The embankment stabilities and slopes must be verified by a
geotechnical study, which will follow this correspondence.
2. The final design slopes will be proof rolled.
3. Six-inch lifts of site soil will be spread and then mixed with one pound of bentonite
per square foot and the mixture compacted to a minimum density of 90 percent
Proctor. Three six-inch layers will be compacted into one 12-inch finished layer.
4. A quality assurance program will be performed on each lift and the final liner
thickness.
The soil/bentonite liner and cap system is a viable option to amend the soils in order to create a
more suitable landfilling environment. However, its installation is relatively expensive and the
amount of quality assurance and quality control necessary to guarantee competent liners and caps
can be rather difficult, even though the expansive nature of the bentonite material can be quite
attractive.
5.2.3 Synthetic Liner
Another option would be to construct a synthetic liner system for the basal liner which would
Include a leachate collection system and a synthetic cap. This would involve virtually the same site
preparation as the soil/bentonite liner system with a synthetic liner being installed. Typical costs
for the liner and leachate collection system will range from $42 - $47 per square yard.
5.2.4 Ground Water Interception
A final option could be assessed as to the possibilities and feasibility of ground water interception.
This could be accomplished on the upgradient portion of the landfill or through a drainage system
that would dissect different portions of the active landfill to minimize the potential of ground water
degradation by lowering the ground water table.

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 9
5.3 Ground Water
As mentioned in the August 7, 1987, correspondence from S&ME to Rowan County, ground water
was observed In twelve piezometers ranging between 5-40 feet below ground surface. Two
piezometers could not be accessed due to crop growth. Ground water levels may be expected to
fluctuate due to rainfall, temperature, season surface drainage, Infiltration, and other factors. The
piezometers exhibiting shallow water levels, B-7, B-8, B-14 and B-15, all lie in the relatively flat area
within about 120 feet of Second Creek, which would not be anticipated as an active landfill area.
The North Carolina Department of Human Resources (DHR) requires that the bottom of the landfill
be a minimum of four feet above the real or estimated ground water level. Assuming no excavation
is required in the low-lying area along Second Creek, the maximum depth of excavation for this site
will be between 12 and 45 feet. However, these readings were collected on August 4, 1987, during
a period of low rainfall. Based upon a similar set of ground water monitor wells emplaced for two
years at a project located approximately 10 miles to the north, we can expect these water levels to
possibly rise 3 to 4 feet in each piezometer. These levels would probably be a more realistic
estimate of the seasonal high ground water table. Based on current solid waste and ground water
regulations, these temporary monitoring wells must be grouted closed prior to construction of the
landfill or within 180 days from the date of their installation. After further conversations with
representatives of DHR, it is their desire that these piezometers and monitoring wells remain open
to assess seasonal fluctuations in the ground water level.
There were no springs found during any of the site visits. If springs are discovered during
subsequent phases of landfill permitting and approval, the landfill construction should be altered to
avoid these areas or a hydrogeologic evaluation should be conducted to determine their impact.
5.4 Excavation
One of the major considerations regarding the use of a landfill site is whether difficult excavation
will be encountered due to weathered or sound rock. Although some rock pinnacles or rock
lenses may be encountered at this site as evidenced by the rock float at the surface, the test
borings indicate that the general depth of weathered rock ranges between 6.5 to greater than 50
feet below land surface. Based upon the depth of ground water in the borings and the regulatory
limits of landfilling beyond four feet above seasonal high ground water table elevation, it appears
that ground water will be the limiting criteria in typical depths of excavation.
5.5 Bedrock Quality
Although no bedrock was observed in outcrops or sampled during the borings for the monitoring
wells, the results of the seismic refraction study completed for the correspondence shown in
Attachment A indicated no extensive fractures existed across the site. There is a more permeable
partially weathered bedrock zone ranging from 8.5 to 50 feet thick, but this is a condition found
across the entire County.
A hydraulic conductivity value of 8.11 x 10-6 cm/sec was calculated at monitoring well MW-1,
which is also an indicator of relatively sound granite (parent bedrock found at the site) without
extensive fracturing.

Completion of Sanitary Landfill Site Application
White and McClamrock Properties
Page 10
5.6 Environmental Protection and Monitoring
Due to the potential of ground water contravention from any sanitary landfilling system, a ground
water monitoring network must be emplaced and sampled to detect leachate infiltrating into the
ground water. The proposed monitoring well network at the White and McClamrock site will
adequately monitor the hydraulically upgradient and downgradient conditions for the most
sensitive shallow ground water hydrologic units. We have proposed that two sets of wells be
emplaced with one set being approximately 100 to 200 feet from the waste boundary to serve as
contaminant detection wells. The second set of wells would exist 500 feet from the waste
boundary or at the property line, whichever is closer, and would serve as point -of -compliance
monitoring wells. If contamination is detected in the first set of monitoring wells, either landfill
preparation, solid waste disposal, ground water extraction and treatment or other methods could
be used to mitigate the contamination before it is detected in the compliance monitoring wells.
This form of leak detection could serve as a viable alternative to minimize the point -of -compliance
contaminant possibilities.
Overall, the additional work tasks completed have corroborated the conclusions reached in the
August 7, 1987, correspondence to Rowan County. Assessment efforts comprising sixteen soil
borings, three ground water monitoring wells, in -situ hydraulic conductivity tests, laboratory
analysis of soils, and geophysical studies have indicated that the site has many suitable
characteristics for landfilling. There are suitable depths of excavatable soil, sufficiently deep
ground water depths, a relatively sparse density of ground water users, shallow ground water
discharge to a relatively large perennial stream and relatively sound crystalline bedrock.. The
potential concerns for the proposed landfill will be in assessing the relative volume of suitable soil
for the construction of liner and cover material and a slightly downward vertical gradient from the
shallow to the deep ground water system.
These and several other factors should be assessed by representatives of Rowan County as to
which landfilling system to pursue. If their intent is to use a natural soil liner and cover in a
conventional landfill system, further investigation will need to be initiated to assess the relative
volume of suitable soils on site and off site or what soil amendments will be needed to accomplish
a suitable soil in a cost versus benefit analysis. It is felt that the amount of quality assurance and
quality control necessary to accomplish suitable bentonite/soil mixture will be cost prohibitive.
Finally, it is also felt that there are other alternatives like ground water interception that can prove
to be a feasible mechanism to minimize the potential for ground water contamination.
If there are further questions as to the concepts discussed, please contact us.
Sincerely,
AQUATERRA, INC.
Phillip L. Rahn
Senior Hydrogeologist/Project Manager
PLR/ltr
cc: Gerald Horton, Dewberry & Davis
R 118-87

FIGURES

SITE LOCATION MAP
PROJECT I AQUATER,RA, I SCALE; As Shown
Rowan County Landfill J07 f110:200_87-106
Rowan County, N.C. INCnRPRATLD
RAI_ IGH,NnRTH CAROLINA IEIGURL NO: 1

0
GROUND WATER USE LOCATION MAP
• Possible ground water users within 0.25
miles of the site boundary
♦ Possible significant ground water users
within a 2 mile radius of the site boundary
1 0 1 MILE
WN 0 1000 2000 3000 -000 00 6000 7000 FEET
I s 0 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEvEL
AOIJATERRA ,
INCORPORATED
,_, NORTH
�R��JECT SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROPOSED ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL JOB No - 200-37-106
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROL I NA FIGURE N o _ 2
•V.'��
'CCU � r �, �. - � i � '�., �''y �, � _ - i �• �i� � \ 'i'., i-`l';ti-%•' '
- J(�'Y// � �� ter''% i,-� � fnl / �! Isl /•,4%!.'•% __
.fir• --,''1 '�( _ ;- ,'' (t`� 'I: ; - � ;�: "_� .� ; - , , ��`.�-; , •_�. � ,.: _--� ^� ` ';��- � _ /: '�
i B.t _� t l ��. [ i, ' �v✓ ^I .k / `.~� .L..i �_ ,., •"y0%�" ft.'- \. _ \ /;. 1 '
722 . r l ! . • - t [tom /� ��. �/• ' �`' '(^ a._ '� , '\\//� 1950 .� ; ' ��/ �� ,ate^\' •'�`li, r, _ \,�
iP
j ��.. �'�� Ii:i• !•��' ./ '� �/ - CT sO •.�J � � •. �� i � I I+' �•/• � r1 e _ �. t ; iI'.
tti
• •� ��/l�:: `-'� l`i ��1 �.�: � :jam
- . (s" y-_ '\\'•�__ ._ _ - e •-ill ``\` _ ��'� ' v ' �' ,,�C+['`�` ' ��•;/�✓�', _ K B� E
41
�1 �tom-40 �i- 1-\ •\_•{�••/%_.-._t^�I/ '•, �'�/ �'..� .f,=-Ji�i� l —
., f ifl .. � _ '.,. .\\. '' �� •- i-�e._ �j'.,`,7 �\- '\-•- � -ice \�� _ 1 _-t' .J• �,
- S7• v •� .v - . t — ` 1 . - - 81v ^" ,� -• i ' { • ..~ j u v: (�( -�.- , -.o i - . •-�7 `'�'t•, . I P�� � �i 1\�\'/%•'1 . , �� : j �s .
✓p � -�,• "• �` � ' �' /��frl ��J-\ �� ' � _ i73'� :� ` ;`�•; ti —^ \ '•�� • _• ".ram _ � - '. a/��
�\\. Si' --'-l\ %�� 0G `�\ • 7 �_ ,_-_-.:: TAT � .✓: ,?�__ . % ` ���: _: - • - 'a\ : ` - ''- ' " •8�,+ -
_��j�I • fs- \ ��
/� !• - /• � :---\: r- ''� j s . �_ � fir;
Y"� - - - )7f. ., /• ': J`ii jr: � '�� 1. / � :I \\•1 , ✓,� .-- —� `•-��----4-•�'�-'��-. .
1 ✓�� i , . --\'• ' : i-�\ .. ,_ � �\\�X��•,�.• ,•�':`-�\`C �� �: "��rl �\-t �li �•..-�_'Tas;,��� �, �,If.r... �`!=l i%' �`, ��. � ✓� f

N�
S.R. 1947 B-5 MW-2
B-1 • MW-3 B-3
B-4 • White Prop rty
-2 B-6
B-12 B-13
•B-15
B-16 MW-1
B-g• McClamrock Prope
moo, B -11
•B-10 A'
PROJECT
PROPOSED ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL
AWATERRA ,
INCORPORATED
k i .^11 t� T i i n n f—
• B-8 B-7•
CROSS SECTION LOCATION MAP
• Piezometer
♦ Monitoring Well
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
JOB No : 200-87-106
rl�l Ic�c nin. 3
JI I, IJI\ I I I L,/'1I N

ELEVATION*
IN FEET
180 MW-2
SAPROLITE
B-6
Approximate
Topographic
Surface
CROSS-SECTION A
160
140
/
B-13
\
\
a
^>
Slightly Clayey Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND/Fine to Coarse
Sandy SILT (SM-MH)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
Sampled as a Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND (SM)
FRACTURED BEDROCK
ti
N
N
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
\
N
120
^'
MW-1
B-11
tom.
r
100
_
.�
\
}
v
r
�
\
Y
�T
FRACTURED BEDROCK
�
\
j
80
��
}
0 400 800 1200
1600
*Elevations are referenced
SCALE IN FEET
from a facility benchmark
60
� \ .ROJECT
AQUATERRA , SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROPOSED ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL INCORPORATED JOB NO - 200-87-106
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TRALEEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 110.

ELEVATION*
IN FEET
r 180
- 160
- 140
- 100
- 80
60
MW=3
B-2
Approximate
��-- Topographic
Surface
B-12
SAPROLITE
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
N
7
C
Y
FRACTURED BEDROCK
n
0 400 800 1200 1600
1 -
T�
F'R0JE �T
PROPOSED ROWAN COUNTY LANDFILL
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE IN FEET
AQUATERRA ,
INCORPORATED
RALEIGH, NORTH CAHOL
CROSS-SECTION R
Slightly Clayey Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND/Fine to Coarse
Sandy SILT (SM-MH)
PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK.
N^ Sampled as a Silty Fine to
Coarse SAND (SM)
L2±j FRACTURED BEDROCK
MW-1
B-14
c
v
n
L
,,Elevations are referenced from
a facility benchmark
SCALE.- AS SHOWN
JOB No. 200-87-106

PROPOSED WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMS
SHALLOW GROUND WATER
MONITOR WELL
Z—•— Locking Cap
INTERMEDIATE GROUND 1.4ATER
MONITOR WELL
Ground
Surface
DEEP GROUND WATER
MONITOR WELL
v
^
c
c
J
Surficial Soils
n
�
v<
V
< t
J
v
>
v
v
r
-7
n
V
n
n
2" Schedule 40
V
PVC Casing
n
v
v>
-
V
<
<
_
v
^
V
c
n
v
A
•
� �
Lv
n
n
_
<y
v
v
_
Partially
2" Schedule 40
_
Weathered
� �
<'
PVC Screen
_
-
Bedrock
v
V
_
<
Fractured -
Bedrock
Grout Backfill
® Bentonite Seal (1')
Relatively
0 Sand Backfill Unfractured
Bedrock
PROJECT AQUATERRA, SCALE; NOT TO SCALE
L,AOPOIED ROWAN COUNTY INCNRPNRATED JOB NNE 200-87-106
NDFROWAN COUNTY, NC RAEEIGH,NHRTH CARHEINA FIGURE NU: 7

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A
AUGUST 7, 1987, CORRESPONDENCE TO
ROWAN COUNTY

ATTACHMENT C
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

DUNCAN-PARNELL, INC., RALEIGH 784
U S STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/Y' 4 10 16 20 40 60 100 200 270
100
I
,
I
'
I
90
'
I
�
I
I
I
80
t
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
70
z
I
I
I
I
w 60
I
r
m
50
I
I
I
I
�
w
z
t
I
IL` 40
I
I
I
z
W
U
tr
W
a
I
I
I
147-
I
I
20
I
I
1
I
I
I
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
eoUL
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SANG
FINES
D E R
3
COARSE I FINE
1COARSE1
MEDIUM FINE
SILT SIZES CLAY SIZES
BORING NO.
ELEV DEPTH
NAT. WC
LL..
PL PI
DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
JOB NO. 200-87-106
G-1
3.5-5.0
32.1%
80
38 42
Red Very Clayey SILT (MH)

DUNCAN-PARNELL, INC., RALEIGH 784
■ r8s�.r eswn�
U S STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
4 10 16 20 40 60 100 200 270
100
i
i
I
I
90
I
I
i
'
I
80
I
�
I
I
I
70
-
—
�'
$
I
�
w 60
I
i
I
r
50
w
I
I
_z
w 40
I
I
z
U
LLJ
20
I
10
'
�
I
�
I
0
i
I
100 10 1.0 o.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
eouL
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
FINES
DERS
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM FINE
SILT SIZES
CLAY SIZES
BORING NO.
ELEV DEPTH
NAT. WC
L.L..
PL
PI
DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION
GRAIN SIZE ®ISTROB����
JOB NO. 200-87-106
-_
8.5-10.0
n 0.0`
58
42
16 Red
Micaceous Sandy Clayey SILT (MH)

DUNCAN-PARNELL, INC., RALEIGH 764
U S STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/g 4 10 16 20 40 60 100 200 270
100
I
90
I
I
TT
-
80
I
I
i
1
1 IT
I
I
w 60
I
I
3
r
I
I
i
I
m
50
I
I
I
I
x
w
z
40
I
I
I
I
z
w
U
w
20
i
I
I
I
I
I
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
110uL
COBBLES
GRAVEL ,
SAND
FINES
DER3
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUAA
FINE
SILT SIZES
CLAY SIZES
BORING NO.
ELE`( DEPTH
NAT. WC
LL..
PL PI
DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION
GRAIN SIZE nISTRIBUTIOW
JOB NO.200-87-106
B-3
8.5-10.0
26.8%
51
40 11
Red Micaceous Very Silty Clayey SAND(SM)

DUNCAN-PARNELL, INC., RALEIGH 7E4
U S STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
10 16 20 40 60
100 100 200 270
I
,
I
i
90
I
,
I
I
80
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
70
I
I
w 60
I
3
r
1
I
m
I
I
I
I
w
z
LL 40
I
I
I
I
z
U
tr
LLJ
0-
'
20
I
I
I
1
10
I
I
I
I
I
�
0
1
100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
e0uL
COBBLES
0 RAVEL.,
SAND
FINES
DER3
COARSE FINE
1COARSE1
MEDIUM FINE
SILT SIZES
CLAY SIZES
BORING N0.
ELE�C DEPTH
NAT. WC
LL.,
PL PI
DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
JOB N0. 200-87-106
P-5
13.5-15.0
8.7c>
---
--- NP
Brown Silty SAND with Fine Gravel (SM)

ATTACHMENT D
LABORATORY ANALYSIS FOR COVER SOILS

ts&mt
(A partnership in North Carolina)
Formerly, Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. October 12, 1987
Aquaterra, Inc.
Post Office Box 50328
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650
Attention: Mr. Phil Rahn
Reference: Laboratory Test Results
Rowan County Landfill
S&ME Job Number 053-87-443
Gentlemen:
As requested, S&ME has performed a Standard Compaction test and
Falling Head Permeability Analysis on a bulk sample from the above referenced
project. The Permeability samples was remolded to 95 percent of Maximum Dry
Density at Optimum Moisture Content and back pressure saturated. In addition
to the Permeability testing, four (4) sets of classification tests and
Natural Moisture Contents were performed on Split Spoon Samples.
Attached, please find a copy of the Moisture Density Curve and
a tabulated sheet of results. If you have any questions or comments con-
cerning these results, please contact our office. //
Very truly
S&ME
Margaret A. Robertson, P.G.
Laboratory Manager
6�o�
(So h �nR Browning, P.E..
Construction Services Manager
MAR/JRB/jis
Enclosures
SWE, Inc.
3109 Spring Forest Rd., P.O. Box 58069
Raleigh, NC 27658-8069 [phone]

TABULATION SHEET
PASSING
OF RESULTS
TOTAL SAMPLE
SIEVES
B-1 S-1
B-2 S-2
B-3 S-2
B-6 S-3
3/4
---
---
---
100
1/2
---
---
---
98
3/8
---
---
---
96
74
---
100
100
87
#10
100
99.6
99.9
79
IT
99.9
98
99
64
tt40
99.7
94
97
46
7','60
99
90
86
34
n100
97
84
67
24
#200
94
74
43
15
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Liquid Limit 80 58 51 --
Plastic Limit 38 42 40 --
Plastic Index 42 16 11 NP
°o Natural Moisture 32.1 40.0 26.8 8.7
FALLING HEAD PERMEAMI TTY U WITS
K
2X10-6 cm/sec
SAMPLE
INITIAL VOID RATIO SATURATION
.628 60.2
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION
POROSITY
.386
B-1 S-1 Red Very Clayey SILT (MH)
B-2 S-2 Red Micaceous Sandy Clayey SILT (MH)
B-3 S-2 Red Micaceous Very Silty Clayey SAND (SM)
B-6 S-3 Brown Silty SAND with Fine Gravel (SM)

140
13s
130
125
0
120
U
O
U
CY
W
N IIS
o1
0
d
}
110
z
w
0
0
105
100
95
90
MOISTURE -DENSITY
RELATIONSHIP -- S&ME
JOB NUMBER 053-87-443
JOB NAME Rowan County Landfill
JOB LOCATION Rowan County, NC
BORING NO.
SAMPLE NO. Bag
DEPTH
METHOD OF TEST ASTM D-698
MAX. DRY DENSITY 110.0 PCF
OPT. MOISTURE CONTENT 15.5 0/0
NAT. MOISTURE CONTENT N/A %
ATTERBERG LIMITS LL N/A PI N/A _
SOIL DESCRIPTION Red Brown Sandy SILT
CURVES OF 100% SATURATION FOR
1 SPECIFIC GRAVITIES EQUAL TO;
2.60
2.70
2.60
1
1
BS
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOISTURE CONTENT - PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT

ATTACHMENT E
SLUG TEST CALCULATIONS

It
m
i
(49@A ul) (J)/� :AJano�Da�]
I
H
O
O
d-

Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Calculations *
Case 1:
Well B-4 Standard Bouwer and Rice Assumptions
Definition Of Variables:
D : Saturated Aquifer Thickness
H : Depth of Water in the Well
H = Static Water Elev. - Elev. of Well Bottom
L : Length of Screen Below Water Table
Note: L = H if Water level is Below the Top of
A & B : Well Geometry Factors - from Bouwer & Rice,
rc : Inne Radius of the Well casing
rw Radius of the Gravel Pack
Yo : Water Level Displacement at time = 0
t : Arbitrary Time from Recovery vs Time Plot
Yt : Water Level Displacement at time = t
Determined Values
D=
H=
L=
A=
B=
rw =
rc =
Yo =
t=
Yt =
for Variables:
40 feet
7 feet
2 feet
1.7
0.25
0.33 feet
0.04 feet
1.5 feet
18 minutes
0.1 feet
Calculate: (1/t)*ln(Yo/Yt)
0.150447
the Screen
Figure 3
Calculate: ln(Re/rw) = 1/[(1.1/ln(H/rw)+(A+B*ln((D-H)/rw)))/(L/rw)]
- 1.203979
Calculate: K =(rc*rc*ln(Re/rw)*(1/t)*ln(Yo/Yt))/(2L)
= 0.000072 feet/minute
= 0.104333 feet/day
* Reference: Bouwer,H and Rice,R.C, 1976: A Slug Test for Determining
Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers With Completely
or Partially Penetrating Wells: Water Res. V.12. No. 3

0
0
0
1--)
0
0
LO
N
cli
0
0 0
(49@A ul) (4),� -.AJ@Ao3a�j

Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Calculations *
Case 1:
Well B-7 Standard Bouwer and Rice Assumptions
Definition Of Variables:
D : Saturated Aquifer Thickness
H : Depth of Water in the Well
H = Static Water Elev. - Elev. of Well Bottom
L : Length of Screen Below Water Table
Note: L = H if Water level is Below the Top of the Screen
A & B : Well Geometry Factors - from Bouwer & Rice, Figure 3
rc :.Inne Radius of the Well casing
rw : Radius of the Gravel Pack
Yo : Water Level Displacement at time = 0
t : Arbitrary Time from Recovery vs Time Plot
Yt : Water Level Displacement at time = t
Determined Values for Variables:
D =
40
feet
H =
4.62
feet
L =
2
feet
A =
1.7
B =
0.25
rw =
0.33
feet
rc =
0.04
feet
Yo =
1.8
feet
t =
11.5
minutes
Yt =
0.1
feet
Calculate: (1/t)*ln(Yo/Yt)
= 0.251336
Calculate: ln(Re/rw) = 1/[(1.1/ln(H/rw)+(A+B*ln((D-H)/rw)))/(L/rw)]
1.123404
Calculate: K =(rc*rc*ln(Re/rw)*(1/t)*ln(Yo/Yt))/(2L)
0.000112 feet/minute
0.162635 feet/day
* Reference: Bouwer,H and Rice,R.C, 1976: A Slug Test for Determining
Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers With Completely
or Partially Penetrating Wells: Water Res. V.12. No. 3

O
O
N
O
1�
O
O
u7
LN
0 O
(499A ul) (J)/� :XJ9AOOa,\j
IS

Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Calculations *
Case l:
Well MW-1 Standard Bouwer and Rice Assumptions
Definition Of Variables:
D : Saturated Aquifer Thickness
H : Depth of Water in the Well
H = Static Water Elev. - Elev. of Well Bottom
L : Length of Screen Below Water Table
Note: L = H if Water level is Below the Top of the Screen
A & B : Well Geometry Factors - from Bouwer & Rice, Figure 3
rc :.Inne Radius of the Well casing
rw : Radius of the Gravel Pack
Yo : Water Level Displacement at time = 0
t : Arbitrary Time from Recovery vs Time Plot
Yt : Water Level Displacement at time = t
Determined Values for Variables:
D = 100 feet
H = 38.14 feet
L = 10 feet
A = 2.75
B = 0.42
r-w = 0.25 feet
rc = 0.083 feet
Yo = 40.6 feet
t = 60 minutes
Yt = 36.6 feet
Calculate: (1/t)*ln(Yo/Yt)
0.001728
Calculate: ln(Re/rw) = 1/[(1.1/ln(H/rw)+(A+B*ln((D-H)/rw)))/(L/rw)]
= 2.895098
Calculate: K =(rc*rc*ln(Re/rw)*(1/t)*ln(Yo/Yt))/(2L)
0.000001 feet/minute
0.002482 feet/day
* Reference: 13Ouwer,H and Rice,R.C, 1976: A Slug Test for Determining
Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers With Completely
or Partially Penetrating Wells: Water Res. V.12. No. 3

REFERENCES
Bouwer, H., and Rice, R. C., 1976: A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity
of Unconfined Aquifers With Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells: Water Res.
V. 12. No. 3.
Cohen, P., 1963, Specific -Yield and Particle -Size Relations of Quaternary Alluvium
Humbolt River Valley, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1669-M.
Groves, M., 1976, Geology and Ground Water Resources of Rowan County.
Johnson, A. l., 1967, Specific Yield -Compilation of Specific Yields for Various Materials:
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1662-D.
Mercer, J. W., Thomas, S. D, and Ross, B., 1982, Parameters and Variables Appearing in
Repository Siting Models: NUREG/CR-3066, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1977, Field Permeability Test Methods with Applications to Solution
Mining: Contract Report by Woodward -Clyde Consultants, PB-272 452, Washington, D.C.,
August.

,
-TC) Jam 1-102
r / 1
I i
F M. ELEV.748.29,45L-III
v loc � � � � �
ell]21 N E. ——-— cFS.h / ,
\ \I 100
v I I I N�.
r Iy
Ml4—v 658' N
52 ] /
— N �-
L�45
- --JDO
v i
N.>✓. 3a
A
\�\ `
y _ \
•
i�
i
�I
I i
1'i I i
II �
; In
Jiz� l�a�-�kT� iR-�aTr1
n
\
�
_ ,/71
I n 2 � tlNa. jr
O
L.i r'l I-r
LEGEND
BORE LOCATIONS �f
Q 3-2 SHALLOW PIEZOMETER LOCATED
Amwi DEEP MONITORING WELL
p�s!5-* SHALLOW PIEZOMETER NOT LOCATED
N.E. NON ENCOUNTERED
DEPTH TO WATER
[—] DEPTH OF BORE
O DEPTH TO ROCK E
— — APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
--- —� SURVEYED PROPERTY BOUNDARY
• DETECTION MONITORING WELL (SHALLOW)
O COMPLIANCE MONITORING WE
(SHALLOW)
_ WSIONS _
NO BY DATE REMARKS
ENGINEER'S SE
rJUN 03 t
a
i~
y
h
�
N
�Lo
U
A
co
(a
w
�a
�w
00
r„
41oo
�o
44
CO
�•�
LL
Q
z
a
J
z
O
U
z
Q
cr
DrPorn By
D ed By
Checked By
Dete-- -.. -
Scale
plan ru 'i00'
Zoned
Sheet
of
Fil,
r
r

NOTE:
1. THIS AS -BUILT IS FOR O.C. PURPOSES ONLY.
DO NOT SCALE FOR AREA TAKE -OFF. FOR
LAB SAMPLES ONLY, USE SCALE 1'=60'-0"
2. SLOPE AREA DENOTES TEXTURED HDT LINER
FLAT AREA DENOTES SMOOTH HOPE LINER.
rTYP. DESTRUCTIVE SAMPLE
P-18 ! TYP. PANEL NO.
rn 026997 F - TYP. ROLL I.D. NO.
N
O N W
P-137 N o o o ^ N ti
28957 W � o a o h0 PATCH
00 W o ^ ^ a o VO �� 26885
P-138� ,r, zj> n "'rn w o o N� o o o a O
Go
28957 l M� N 1 00 No N °N° W j W o No N N ^ W w N e Oti
N d N ^
P-139 �N aN M o 00 o allo 00 o No o rn rn N co 00 a Q P-971
i o ^ N o c W o ,o ^ co P o ^ ^ o o N Q 026
28957 0 o NoGo o N o M N N N N j O O W W W W W W W O M p`20 026911
P-140 28957 a d 7M N N �* M c o 0 0 o M C. 0 i
P-194 46592 N
P-141 28957 o a aa s aN d rn
a a
a911
P_1
DS 38 P-195 17784 DS 45 PATCH °FI p_23 026816
P-142 28957 0 0
P-196 44221 P_24
026816
P-143 28557
DS 47 P-198 DS 46 17676 P-197 17784 � p_25
P-199 026816
P-144 28557 D 17783 � DS 13 p_26 028009
o P-145 28557 DS 48
P-200 43748
P-146 28557 P-
` P-21 028009
201 17769
O
P-28 028009
P-147 28557 P-202 17780 DS 49 N
p 29 028006
Ln
P-148 28557 P- p
203 17618 a DS 1 p-30 028006
P-149 28557 N
P-204 0
43664 DS 50 � cc
28557 DS 51
o 'D 028006 DS 11
DS 39 P-206 43736 D o o p-31
P-205 17769 p_32 026811
P-151 28557 P-208 17619 r ° p
P-207 17780- o- p
DS 52 _33 026811
°
P-152 28844 P-211 43660 _ Dg 12 P-34 026811
o o
P-210 46592 P-153 28844 P-212 43579 43660 DS 53 c' o
0
P-35 026995
P-154 28844 P-215 17622 P-213 43579 '
a P_36 026995
5375
P-155 28856 P-216 17622 DS 54 P-214 p_31 026995
-156 28856 P-219 17656 P-217 17658 DS 8
N p_38
026991
P-157 28856 P-220 43739 r
DS 56 P-218 < p_}9 026991
No
F-158 28856 DS 57 17658 �,
P-222 43721 o a P-40 026991
P 159 28856 P-221 �
DS 40 P-224 50955 DS 58 43721 `r _ Dg 10
P-223 50955 026992
a, M o P_41
60 r8"g- P-226 023514 P_42 026992
DS 59 P-225 23514 r c
P-161 28558 P-230 P-227 17696 N P 43 028992
43659 P-228 17696 DS 60
o o to
P 162 28558 DS 61 P-229 46503 N P_44 026996
a
S 62 P-231 43659 N �� o F 163 28558
P-233 17701 o n
00 P 45 p26996
P 164 28558 p_
P-232 17701
DS 63 235 50966
P-165 28558 P-237 17679 P-234 50966 - M a " DS 9 p 46 p26996
DS 64 °
P-236 17679p-Al 28D00
P-241
DS 41 - P-238 17679 o ao 0CD
r- cb M �
l �
r
P- 66 28857 DS 65 P-239 023505 "' rn p g4 26101
46591 o a
P-240 46591 ° o Ln In a °-
P-'67 28857 ¢ ° p-85 26101
LO
P-243 43663 n r 0- o
DS 66 P-242 43663 o 00 o
P-168 28857 P M P-244 46502 o N d = N ` p_11l 43121 -245 17772 P g6 26101 � �
DS 67 N r N o
P-169 28857 M r'
P-246 43213 m r a
DS 68 P-g9 28706
P-258 N � r 1 a
P-170 -8857 P-247 17675 DS 69 39589 o
o p_115 43121 A p_100 2
9 8113
P-259 17658 6 43665
6
P-171 28857 P-248 17675
DS 70 p-11A.'9 ?B�17J P 8713
24' LINE `-
P-172 28969 P-250 8" LINE P-260 17658 0 M 14
P-249 46502
-173 289 N - M co
y969 O M N O N CD 100 alrD
O N
T Of O M
0� Obi � � � UO'J � h � p � � � � fp tp tp tp o o u�'J N O o O �P-
l' °� °� W 00 W rn N o o N o o o r t- W oD 1 a
'p NW W 00 O p O W W N u) rt] rI} I� ^ I ^ n 1z r I !� O r W W
00 W W 00 W W O W N N W
P-175 N N N N N N N O a O W coW W W W N
� W OO N N N N N N M M M N N N N N M 1 00
28969 Q j c0 m "o ao ao rn W o rn ? o a a
�-
o 1 a
a
P-177J a a
28969
PLANV I R
(SCALE AS NOTED)
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF GUNDLE LINING CONSTRUCTION CORP AND MAY NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION BELIEVED TO BE CORRE''T, BUT WHICH IS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. THE DETAILS ARE OFFERED AS A GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND TO ASSIST ENGINEERS WITH THEIR DESIGN. HOWEVER, GUNDLE ASSUMES NO LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION
EXPOSED RM LINERS PRESENT A SAFETY HAZARD FOR PERSONNEL AND ANIMALS SINCE THE SLICK SURFACE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WET, CAN PRECIPITATE FALLS AND PRECLUDE ESCAPE FROM EVEN MILD SLOPES. AFTER DEM08 LIZATION OF GUNDLE
CREWS. IT IS THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILTY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT IN THE FORM OF FENCES, ROPES, LADDERS, ETC., AS ARE NECESSARY TO PREVENT INJURY OR DEATH.
R,
E
E
RECEIVED
NOV 6 1989
DEWBERRY & DAVIS
RALE[GH, N.C;
DATE I REV I DESCRIPTION
ID OWNER:
DRAWING
Guurn)dJloe OWNER:
19103 GUNDLE ROAD
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77073
ROWAN COUNTY
SALISBURY, N.C.
qffljuswolffllw�
DATE: 10-26-89
SCALE: AS NOTED
DRAWING No BY
D004402 DT
APPROVED BY REV
DST 0
�p r