4116-WIHighPointC&DLF_Comments_CQA_Phase 3A_FID1353908_20190823

From:Chao, Ming-tai
To:Mike Brinchek ([e-mail])
Cc:Kirchner, Chuck; Drummond, Jaclynne; Stanley, Sherri
Subject:Comments on the CQA - Phase 3A, WI High Point C&D Landfill, 41-16
Date:Friday, August 23, 2019 8:28:00 AM
Attachments:image008.emzimage010.pngimage003.pngimage004.png
Hi Mike:
The Solid Waste Section completes a review of the CQA Report for WI High Point C&DLF –
Phase 3A, Permit # 4116-CDLF-2012. The comments and request for additional info arestated below:
1. (Sections 3.4, Appendices B & I) The June 13, 2019 Memorandum with the DrawingNo. X1/Sheet No. 4 provided further clarifications of the designed underdrain. The
approved aggregates thickness of the underdrain is two (2) feet, but the constructedunderdrain thickness is 1.5 feet (at a minimum) as shown on the Drawing No.
X1/Sheet No. 4 in Appendix I of the CQA report.a. Please add the June 13, 2019 Memorandum and all Field Orders made for this
Phase 3A construction to the Appendix B of the CQA report.b. In Section 3.4, provide narrative descriptions of the constructed underdrain
including the dimensions, hydraulic characteristics, and designed flow capacity,etc.
c. Will the flow capacity of the constructed underdrain be different from thedesigned one? How much? Please describe.
d. Please provide the as-build cross section/profile of the underdrain relative to theelevations of the constructed landfill subgrade, bed rock, long-term ground
water table. The data shown on the as-built Sheet 1 of 1, prepared by thelicensed surveyor) is different from those on Drawing No. X1/Sheet No. 4. It is
imperative to have the as-built drawings (both layout and profile) of theconstructed underdrain.
2. (Section 5.4 & Appendix G1) Please add the copy of the test result of calcium
carbonate on drainage aggregate to Appendix G1.
3. (Section 6.0 & Table 1)a. The number (6) of performed test is less than the required control tests (8).
Please explain why this practice is acceptable. A non-conformance report maybe required.
b. Please report the total quantity of earthen material was used for constructing thelandfill cell base. The quantity in cubic yards then can be used to verify if the
number testing conducted meets the specification and the CQA plan.
4. (Appendix H)a. According to Technical Specification Section 02223 Part B, the earthen
material used as the landfill subgrade must have a maximum standard Proctordry density (by ASTM D 698) of at least 100 pound per cubic foot (pcf). The
soil from the stockpiles or borrows where samples S-4 & SF-5 were collectedshall not be used for landfill subgrade because each sample has the standard
Proctor dry density less than 100 pcf (98.8 & 96.0 pcf, respectively as shown in
Appendix H1). However, in Appendix H2, area (lift 2) represented by thesample ND-44 was constructed by using borrow source from S-4. Please
explain why the constructed subgrade is acceptable.b. Provide the map or sketch to show the locations of the in-place testing (ND 1
through ND 103) and lab testing (DC-1 through DC-3, DC-5 through DC-12).c. DC-1 data (in Field Density Report) is different from those shown lab report
(SFDR-01).d. ND-15 data of compaction effort (in Field Density Report) is different from
that in “Record Test Summary.”
5. (Appendix I) Please provide the as-built survey data of the constructed landfill subgradeper Technical Specification Section 02222 Part D.20.
Please contact me if you have any question or request for further clarification on the
comments. Have a wonderful weekend.

From: Chao, Ming-tai 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:40 AM
To: Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] WI High Point C&D Landfill

Hi Mike: You are 100% correct. PP14 & 15 of the approved WCA PTC-Phase 2 Application (DIN6646) stated that gross capacity of app. 4,800,000 cy with net air space of 4,250,000 cy. It isevident that the Solid Waste Section dropped ball again at that time, but I will right the wrongthis time. Thank you very very much to assist me in this matter. Have a wonderful day. Ming

From: Mike Brinchek <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:18 AM
To: Chao, Ming-tai <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] WI High Point C&D Landfill

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]

Ming,

It appears that the 2012 Permit incorrectly identified Net Airspace as Gross Airspace. As shown on
the attached table (November 2008 Facility Plan), 4,251,206 is the net of 4,816,525 CY. As previously
noted, S+G has been carrying 4,733,968 CY as the Gross Airspace since we took over the permit
based on our volume calculations.

Mike

W. Michael Brinchek, PE
Senior Project Manager
SMITH + GARDNER
14 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
P [phone], Ext. 128
F [phone]
C [phone]